9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 890X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture of their final products. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi issued 11 show cause notices to the merchant exporters for recovery of various export incentives claimed by them from time to time on the ground that they have indulged in fraudulent exports during the period 1.4.2001 to 28.8.2003. The goods found to be scrap by the Customs authorities of UAE/Dubai as the assessee appellant is exporting through merchant exporter. In these set of facts, the factory preemies of the appellant- assessee was searched and it was found closed on 28.4.2006. During the course of search various statements were recorded and stock taking was done and on the basis of investigation it was alleged that the appellant-assessee was not manufactu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eport of UAI/Dubai Customs, it was alleged that merchant exporter exported scrap and not forging/casting but during the course of investigation the samples were drawn from the containers at port which were finished goods manufactured by the appellant and as per samples, the goods were found to be forging/casting. Therefore, the allegation of the Revenue that during the impugned period, the appellant -assessee was not manufacturer is not sustainable. Moreover, in the appellant's own case in another proceedings against the appellant to deny the Cenvat credit on furnace oil without actual receipt of the said inputs in their factory, this Tribunal vide Final Order NO.A/62335-62336/2018-EX (DB) dt.14.3.2018 allowed Cenvat credit to the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dubai, Customs wherein the goods found to be scrap but the appellant-assessee cleared the goods and the same were found at port in containers and the samples were drawn at port. On the basis of sample, it was found that the said goods were casting/forging manufactured by the appellant-assessee. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant did not manufacture the goods during the impugned period. Moreover, in the appellant's own case in another proceeding, a show cause notice issued to the appellant to deny the credit on furnace oil. In the show cause notice, there was no allegation against the appellant-assessee that the appellant-assessee was not manufacturer. Therefore, the allegation of the Revenue against the appellant-assessee that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue is dismissed. (b) we confirm the demand of Rs. 4,44,410/- on account of denial of credit. (c) We hold that the goods worth of Rs. 58,11,850/- for Rs. 35 lacs on which the appellant-assessee has paid duty of Rs. 5,71,200/-. In that circumstance, the sale value of Rs. 35 lacs is to be considered cum duty price as the appellant discharged duty correctly. The amount already paid by the appellant-assessee is to be appropriated against the aforesaid demand. (d) The appellant- assessee is liable to pay penalty 25% of the duty confirmed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the appellant- assessee is liable to pay penalty equal to the duty. (e) We also reduce the penalty to Rs. 25,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
