2011 (1) TMI 1317

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Shri K.S. Chandrasekhar, JDR, for the Respondent. ORDER This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 49/2010 dated 9-2-2010. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants are holding a Central Excise registration No. AAACE538NXM001 and are the manufacturers of Metered Valves, Pump and Ferrules Actuators falling under chapter heading 84 of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved by the rejection, the appellants filed an appeal before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority after considering the submissions made before him rejected the appeal. Hence this appeal. 3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would draw my attention to the letter dt. 23-11-2007 wherein they....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... authorities have gone on different directions and have not appreciated the facts and the case laws submitted by them. It is also his submission that CBEC Circular No. 290/6/97-CX, dated 20-1-1997 would be applicable in this case. 4. Ld. DR would submit that the first appellate authority as well as the Adjudicating Authority has proceeded on the ground that the appellants filing of the ref....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iled a refund claim. 6. On the factual matrix, I find that there is no dispute regarding the clearances of the goods to the SEZ units. It is also undisputed that the clearances which were made to SEZ units are not liable for duty. The only dispute that has been created by the audit team is that the appellant has cleared the goods under ARE-1; without executing bond and on letter of underta....