Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the demand of additional excise duty could be sustained when the intimation contemplated under Rule 5 of the Sugar Export Promotion Rules, 1973 from the export agency was not referred to in the show cause notice or the impugned order and the proceedings were initiated by the Central Excise authorities.
Analysis: Rule 5 makes intimation by the export agency about failure to deliver export quota a condition precedent for initiation of action by the Central Excise Department. The record did not show any such intimation having been made the basis of the demand. The certificates issued by the export corporation also supported the appellants' fulfilment of export obligation. In these circumstances, the Tribunal followed its earlier decisions on the same issue and held that the departmental proceedings could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The demand was held to be unsustainable and the proceedings were declared ab initio void.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief to the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute and rules require prior intimation from the designated export agency as a condition precedent for levy proceedings, initiation without such intimation renders the demand void.