2002 (10) TMI 729

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) procured from the market by paying duty @ Rs. 50/- per Kg. prescribed under Notification No. 356/86-C.E., dated 24-6-86 (as amended) and by following the procedure prescribed under Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Under another Notification No. 355/86-C.E., dated 24-6-86, cigarettes manufactured out of duty-paid cut tobacco were exempt from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as was equivalent to the duty of excise (leviable under the Central Excises and Salt Act) already paid on "cut tobacco" used in the manufacture of such cigarettes. However, such exemption was available only to cigarettes cleared for home consumption. The following proviso was added to Notification No. 355/86-C.E. by the amending Notification No....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....missioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the lower authority and remanded the case to that authority for de novo adjudication in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice. The remand order had noted the submission of the party that they were prepared to produce the relevant AR-4 (duly certified by the Customs authorities) and other related documents in support of their claim. It enabled the party to produce the certified AR-4 and other related documents to the original authority. In the remanded proceedings, however, the party could not produce the original AR-4, though they produced the original Shipping Bill, original GP-2 and a copy of the bank certificate evidencing realization of export proceeds. The original authorit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (3)     CCE, Bhubaneswar v. Aluminium Industries Ltd. [1995 (80) E.L.T. 283 (Tribunal)] (4)     Eicher Tractors v. CCE, Hyderabad [2002 (147) E.L.T. 457 (T) = 2002 (48) RLT 810 (CEGAT-Delhi)] Ld. Counsel further submitted that, in the impugned order, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) did not follow his own view taken in the earlier order, wherein it was observed that the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Kanwal Engineers (supra) was relevant to the case. The lower appellate authority also did not care to examine the question whether the original Shipping Bill and/or other documents produced by the appellants were admissible as proof of export of goods for the purpose of granting the benefit of ....