1994 (4) TMI 152

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., it was alleged that the appellants had exceeded Rs. 30 lakh clearances during the year 1981-82 and as such were not entitled for exemption under the Notification No. 105/80, dated 19-6-1980 as amended during the financial year 1982-83. As such duty amount of Rs. 52,015.76 was demanded on the respective clearances made as per G.P. 1 No. 4, dated 2-6-1982; G.P. 1 No. 5, dated 13-6-1982 and G.P. 1 No. 6, dated 2-7-1982. (ii) By show cause-notice dated 30-6-1982, it was alleged that they had exceeded the first clearances of Rs. 30 lakhs during the financial year 1981-82 in terms of Notification No. 105/80, dated 19-6-1980 as amended, by Rs. 5,32,609/- in excess of the said limit and hence CED of Rs. 42,608.72 was demanded for the respectiv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd and held that it was not proper on the part of the Asstt. Collector to have rejected outright the contentions of the appellants that goods had been exported, merely because AR-4A had not been filed. In that event of the matter, the ld. Collector (Appeals) remanded the case with a direction to consider afresh in the light of the collateral evidence produced by the appellants about the export (emphasis supplied by us) and decide the case afresh. 5. On remand the Asstt. Collector by his order dated 7-12-1984 again rejected the plea of the appellants, despite accepting the evidence of export, on the ground that he did not find any evidence, whatsoever, which can prove beyond doubt, that the goods which were cleared from the factory w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e issue and were deliberately not considering the case despite the matter having been remanded twice by two Collectors (Appeals). The subject matter of first remand had been only to accept the collateral evidence. The Asstt. Collector had accepted the export of the goods but had held that there remained a doubt pertaining to its veracity. The Collector (Appeals) again remanded on a limited ground to accept export documents after verification. The Asstt. Collector for the first time had deviated from the remand orders and had held that it could not be done so in absence of AR 4s. The ld. Advocate took us through the entire evidence, shipping bills, invoices and other documents under the Customs Act and Sales Tax Act and was able to co-relate....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... had given a specific finding that the collateral evidence of export produced by the appellants should be considered. In the first instance on remand, the Asstt. Collector held that there was a export and the documents had to be presented. However, he came to the conclusion that the export might not be pertaining to the goods manufactured by the appellants. On appeal, the Collector held that the Asstt. Collector had failed to co-relate the documents and give any findings and therefore, remand the same for the second time. On remand, the Asstt. Collector has again refused to consider the case and has held that they had not followed the procedure by filing AR 4 at the time of clearance and hence they are not entitled for the benefit of the no....