TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Superintendent , Central Excise, A.R. IV, Div. v. Ahmedabad, directed the petitioner not to carry out any further removal of raw materials/semi-finished goods/finished goods under Self Removal Procedure and the SRP facility of the unit was withdrawn till further orders. Thereafter, by letter dated 26-7-2002 the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Division V., Ahmedabad I, directed the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gence) from carrying out necessary inquiry/investigation against the petitioner as well as Respondent No. 4 in respect of the allegations contained in the letter dated 26-7-2002 (Annexure : F). 2. It seems that in spite of this direction, issued to the respondents, nothing was done in the matter and ultimately on 17-9-2002 another Division Bench of this Court admitted the matter by issuing Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the exports made by it. Though served, the Respondent No. 4 has not made its appearance through any Advocate. 5. By letter dated 26-7-2002 (Annexure : F) it was found by the Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise, Div. v. Ahmedabad 1, that three exports were effected by the petitioner through its Merchant-Exporter M/s. Systematic Corporation, Mumbai. But, on careful scrutiny and examination it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty liability involved in three cases within 10 days from the receipt of the same was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner had already submitted B-17 Bond and as per the terms and conditions of the said Bond if the Authority is satisfied that forged proof of export was submitted to the office without actual export being effected then the Authority would be entitled t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
