9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.R. Per : Devender Singh This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order dt. 26.09.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are the manufacturer of cut wire shot and they also export the manufactured goods. They had issued ARE-1 dt. 29.04.2010 for export of excisable goods under LUT, which were to be exported under Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for violating the procedure. The appellants went in appeal, wherein the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty of Rs. 2,000/- but upheld the demand along with interest and reduced the penalty under Rule 25 to Rs. 25,000/-. Aggrieved from the same, the appellants have filed this appeal. 3. Ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that the exported go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 48 days, the goods were available in the factory on 27.08.2010, but Department's officer did not visit the factory to verify the goods in 24 hours. He further stated that the goods were removed in the month of September-October 2010. He also drew attention to the show cause notice wherein it is clearly mentioned that on 31.07.2010, the assessee sought entry of goods in the daily stock account reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid demurrage. There is no dispute about genuine reasons for non export of goods. For return of goods to the factory, the appellant have also produced the evidence of filing of Sales Tax challan of Haryana and the evidence of the transportation of goods to their factory. Admittedly, there is a delay in bringing the goods to their factory and their entry in the daily stock account register. Howev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roper for the officers to verify the goods, which is mandated for only 5% of the intimations, but the officers never went to verify the goods in the intervening period. 7. In these circumstances, I find that the bonafide of the appellants cannot be doubted and a demand cannot be fastened to them merely on the basis of presumptions. 8. In view of the foregoing, I find that there is no merit in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
