9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai. 2.Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Deputy Commissioner confirmed the Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,81,467/- in respect of AR 4 No. 1/98-99 for failure to furnish proof of exports (exports being under bond) by filing the original copy of AR 4. Nor the duplicate copy of the said AR 4 bore any endorsement of Customs authority. He also ordered rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merits. They pleaded reliance on the case laws reported in (i) 1999 (105) E.L.T. 30 (Mad.) (ii) 1993 (66) E.L.T. 497 (Tri.) (iii) 1991 (53) E.L.T. 558 (GOI) (iv) 1993 (67) E.L.T. 759 (GOI) (v) &nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (c) 1994 (71) E.L.T. 98 (Tri.) (d) 1994 (74) E.L.T. 959 (Tri.) (e) 1990 (47) E.L.T. 90 (Tri.) (f) 1990 (48) E.L.T. 475 (Tri.) and (g) 1989 (44) E.L.T. 775 (Tri.). That the impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he packing list were endorsed by the Inspector of Central Excise. That the reverse of the AR 4 reveals that the packings were sealed vide seal No. C. Ex./Bom. III/108 with endorsements made by the Inspector and the Superintendent of Central Excise. That the Delivery challan No. 46 of the applicants bears the Container No. CTZU 462035-4. The same container No. is reflected on the obverse of the AR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r ex vessel mentioned in the shipping bill, and allow the rebate under Rule 13 in accordance to law.
6.As regards imposition of penalty, as the applicants could not produce the proof of export by way of the original AR 4 bearing the Customs endorsement, it cannot be assailed.
7.The impugned Order-in-Appeal is modified in terms of para 5 supra. So ordered. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
