TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No. E/50380/2016-(SM) - A/52098/2018-SM[BR] - Dated:- 25-5-2018 - Mr. Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical) Sh. R. P SINGH.ADV. - for the appellant Sh. P. JUNEJA.DR. - for the respondent Per: Bijay Kumar Member(T) This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.DDN/EXCUS /000/APPL-1/396/2015-16 dated 22/12/2015. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and also availing area based exemption. The appellant vide application dated 21/03/2012 applied for procurement of excisable goods without payment of duty under Central Excise (Removal or Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufactur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n local market and while others were still lying in their stock. 4. It is against this background, the Revenue has issue the Show Cause Notice for the contravention of the provisions of aforesaid Rule Notification and after due process of law, the case were adjudicated upon by denying the benefit and confirming the demand by the Adjudicating Authority. The impugned order upheld the order of the lower Adjudicating Authority and the appeal of the appellant was dismissed. 5. The Ld. Advocate stated that the appellant was forced to export the goods in order to meet the export obligations by obtaining the goods on payment of duty as there was delay in the grant of requisite permission by the Revenue Authority. He conceded to the fact that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DR, while supporting the impugned order, submits that the respondent has not followed the provisions of the said Rule and Notification. It is his submission that the appellant should have followed the procedures as mentioned in the said Rules Notification and only then they were entitled for the benefit of the Notification. 8. Heard the submissions made by both the side and also perused the case record. The facts are not much in dispute and only issue remains to be decided as to whether the export of the goods made under the provisions of Rule and Notification is only a procedural mistake or it is the non-compliance of the conditions mentioned in the Notification which would deny them the benefit contained therein. It is the contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
