https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353019 The Member(Judicial) overturned the Order-in-Appeal and Ld. Asstt. Commissioner's decisions, ruling in favor of the appellants in the excise duty dispute. The discrepancies between the description, quantity, and weight in the ARE-1 and shipping bills were deemed insufficient to disprove the export of goods procured under CT-1 and ARE-1. The Member highlighted that the ARE-1, certified by customs officers during export, provided adequate evidence of the physical export of all goods. Consequently, the demand for excise duty was deemed unjustified, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants. en-us Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Dec 2017 08:10:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353019 The Member(Judicial) overturned the Order-in-Appeal and Ld. Asstt. Commissioner's decisions, ruling in favor of the appellants in the excise duty dispute. The discrepancies between the description, quantity, and weight in the ARE-1 and shipping bills were deemed insufficient to disprove the export of goods procured under CT-1 and ARE-1. The Member highlighted that the ARE-1, certified by customs officers during export, provided adequate evidence of the physical export of all goods. Consequently, the demand for excise duty was deemed unjustified, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353019