TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (9) TMI 400
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te concerns allegation regarding non-availability of duty exemption of advance licences under Customs Notification No. 203/92, dated 19-5-1992 on the ground that Modvat credit had also been taken and availed of on the goods imported. He submits that the said licences were transferred to M/s. Farook Exports after obtaining permission of the DGFT as the present appellants had fulfilled the entire export obligations thereunder even without importing any goods on the said licences. Ld. Advocate submits that since as the transfer endorsement was available in terms of Exim policy, therefore the DGFT had permitted the transferrability of the said licences. Hence, there is no dispute on the fact that appellants themselves have never imported any go....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the present appellants were not even registered with the Central Excise department as their product (which was exported) was not excisable. Therefore, the question of having availed of any Modvat credit on the inputs contained in these export products does not arise. Ld. Advocate submits that in view of the said certificate now available on record, the order-in-original is a non-speaking order for the following reasons :- (a) It does not consider their submission that appellants had not imported any goods and if the ultimate buyer of the transferred licence had imported any goods and availed of duty exemption under Customs Notification, that was the matter between the department and those importers and the appellants could not be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Modvat credit was enjoyed on the raw material used for the manufacture of such pouches and whether such pouches were manufactured by the supporting manufacturers listed in the certificate or not. 6. We have carefully considered these submissions and we find that since the matter lies on a short compass, we grant waiver and stay in the matter and proceed to consider the appeal itself. 7. On a careful consideration of the above submissions, we find that as follows :- (a) appellants were not manufacturer/exporters but were merchant-exporters. (b) the goods exported by them were manufactured by supporting manufacturers on record. (c) the ACCE under the jurisdiction of whom these supporting manufacturers fell has gi....