AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 1045
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he case matter are that Applicant for the purpose of their exports have executed a Bond No. 2857/MCM/99 dated 7-12-1999 for Rs. 5,00,000/- valid upto 31-3-2002 under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for procurement and export of excisable goods without payment of Central Excise duty in terms of Rules 13 & 14 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Notification No. 48/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 22-4-1994. It was seen from the Running Bond Account of the said Exported, that they had procured 17 Block Transfers/CT-1s amounting to Rs. 3,36,209/- under the aforesaid Bond for clearance of excisable goods without payment of Central Excise duty for export for which proper proof of exports were not submitted by them and hence they contravened the provision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....through all supporting documents, which has not been acknowledged by the Respondent (sic) has failed to give any findings on the detailed submissions/ exhibits submitted by the Applicants to substantiate the exports albeit through supporting documents/Xerox copies of relevant documents, upon which even the Adjudicating authority has stated that co-relation was established as the quantity and description of goods shown in the AR-4s tallies with the Shipping Bill and the Shipping Bill reference appears on the copy of Bill of Lading and Bank Realization certificate, in respect of each and every AR4 document. This being the case, it is not understood as to how the Respondent has sought to reject the appeal on these grounds when the adjudicating....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther, more or less similar is the situation in respect of all other AR-4s pertaining to the Revision Application under reference as being pleaded and explained by the Applicant herein till this stage. 4.2 Besides, the Respondent is wrong on record when he states in the impugned order that no fresh documents were submitted by the Applicants to co-relate the exports. In fact, immediately after the personal hearing, the Applicants had supplied the copies of two Bonds dated 13-4-1999 & 7-12-1999 along with the copies of relevant AR4's, Shipping Bills, Bill of Ladings & Bank Realization Certificates as agreed during the personal hearing, vide letter dated 21-7-2009. However, the Respondent has not even brought the same on record anywhere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cribed in Section 11A would not be applicable in the case of recovery proceedings under Rule 13/14 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Without prejudice to whatever is stated herein above Applicants wish to submit that it is pertaining to note that the Bond executed by the Applicants was valid only upto 9-11-1999. The Show Cause Notice (cited supra) was issued to the Applicants on 15-1-2007 and the impugned Order-in-Original (cited supra) was issued on 27-12-2007. It can be seen that the adjudicating authority had issued the impugned Order-in-Original based on illegal Show Cause Notice which is issued on non-valid bond. Further, the provisions of Section 11A have neither been invoked in the Show Cause Notice nor in the Orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- CCE, Surat v. Nutan Texturiser. (ii) 2005 (179) E.L.T. 70 (Tri.-Del.) - Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur-II. (iii) 2001 (135) E.L.T. 586 (Tri.-Del.) - Bhansali Engg. Polymers Ltd. v. CCE, Indore. (iv) 2002 (142) E.L.T. 141 (Tri.-Del.) - CCE, Jaipur v. Lucky Plast Ltd. In view of above submissions made by the Applicants the non-acceptance of proof of exports in respect of the AR-4/ARE-1's and the demand of duty and penalty issued by the Respondent is unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside on merits of the case and the impugned order may be set aside. 5. Personal hearing scheduled in this case on 2-12-2010, 2-2-2011 & 10-5-2011 but nobody appeared o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....above, Government 1st of all has no hesitation in upholding the views of lower authorities for non-acceptance of such exhibits because there is no such law anywhere which mandates that Xerox/Photostats (that too without pre-authentication) should be allowed to replace the required original documents as per law. Government is not inclined to consider such form of documents even for the purpose of "collateral evidence" which may or may not link the impugned exports, to the manufactured/cleared (as per Central Excise invoices) goods for the purpose. Here Government wants to impress upon that for rightful implementation of policy of the Government for distribution/granting of public revenue for the "correct" exports the below mentioned legal st....