TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bai. 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 recovery of interest under Sec. 11A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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) 1994 (72) E.L.T. 311 (Tri.) (vi) 1996 (86) E.L.T. 600 (Tri.) (vii) 1986 (25) E.L.T. 723 (Tri.) (viii) 1994 (71) E.L.T. 1081 (GOI) (ix) 1987 (31) E.L.T. 722 (Tri. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of Orissa. 4.S/Shri M.H. Patil, Advocate together with V.S. Shetty and R.S. Mohite were heard on 15-3-2001 at camp, Mumbai. The ld. Counsel submitted that the only point on which the claim has been rejected is for non-furnishing of original AR 4 (that was lost) though the export could be established from other documentary evidences. In particular he placed reliance on laws reported in 1999 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral Excise was countersigned by the Customs officer (Asstt. Commissioner of Customs in this case). In view of the above overwhelming documentary evidences, Govt. would not be averse to condone the non-submission of proof of exports by way of original AR 4, subject however to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner by comparing the duplicate AR 4 received from Customs and the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
