TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (11) TMI 476
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were stuffed at the exporter's premises at Manuru, Udupi under the supervision of the jurisdictional officers of Central Excise. The containers for stuffing actually were sent from Cochin port. At the time of stuffing the containers, three sets of samples were drawn for examination. Two sets of samples were duly sealed and handed over to the exporter for submitting them to Customs at the port of export. The third sample was retained by the Central Excise officers at Udupi. After stuffing, the containers were sealed by the Central Excise officers and sent to Cochin Port for further export. The CHA in Cochin submitted the shipping bills for assessment along with copies of purchase orders and related documents. The Deputy Commissioner at the D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....premises. At that time, samples were drawn and the test results indicate that the goods are Taffeta Silk Fabrics only. (ii) When the samples were drawn at Cochin, the exporter was not informed. It is stated that an employee of CHA was present at the time of drawal of sample. However, the exporter has not authorized the employee of CHA and, therefore, the samples taken at the back of the exporter, cannot be a reliable sample for taking a decision in the matter especially, when the goods were stuffed in the presence of departmental officers. (iii) The appellant is a merchant exporter and procured the Taffeta Silk Fabrics from various suppliers. (iv) Even on visual inspection, one can find whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt which was drawn at the back of the appellant and the authenticity of which is doubtful because of the fact that EP copy of the shipping bill clearly mentions the fact that the consignment was not opened for physical examination. (ix) There was inordinate delay in settling of Drawback claims. Therefore, to prove the fact that the exports made by the appellant were genuine, the appellants produced a certificate from the buyer stating that they had received the consignment in good condition and the said consignment consists of 45,000 mtrs. of Taffeta silk fabrics and 18,000 pieces of ladies middies. The appellants also produced certificate from the Corporation Bank for export and realization which clearly proves that the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e fact of cross examination has been refused for frivolous reasons and this itself is a pointer to the fact that the case of the department that goods other than silk fabric was exported cannot stand the test of law. 5. The learned SDR reiterated the findings of the Commissioner in the impugned order. 6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. Based on the test results of the samples taken in the Docks at Cochin, the Adjudicating Authority has given a finding that the goods actually exported are only Polyester and not Tafetta Silk as declared by the appellant. Therefore, he has rejected the claim for Drawback which the appellant would otherwise be entitled to in respect of Tafetta Silk. 6.1 From the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, the Joint Commissioner, Mangalore, has given a very detailed report on the drawal of the samples by the Range Superintendent. He has clearly brought out that the Range Superintendent has followed the procedures in accordance with the Manuals prescribed by the Board. On this also, the Commissioner's Adjudication Order is silent. Further, the foreign buyer has given the following confirmation :- "RINOWS Establishment for Trading Proprietor Saleh Abdul Rahman A. S. Banafie C.R. 1010098060-Riyadh We hereby confirm that we have received 45,000 meters of Taffeta Fabric (made wholly of R.M.S. and Warf Weft R.M.S.) vide invoice No. 7, 8 and 9 dated 10-10-2002. Apart from above we have received 18,000 Pcs Ladies Midi made of Pol....