2016 (10) TMI 269

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... raised by the appellant are extracted below:- "a) Whether the impugned order is sustainable when the goods were actually exempted from duty? b) Whether duty can be paid in terms of SSI exemption notification on goods exported out of country? c) Whether demand is sustainable when appellant was entitled to refund had higher amount of duty been paid?" 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is a small scale industrial unit. During the year 2003-2004, it had cleared the goods for home consumption, whereas certain goods were exported out of India. 4. On the exports, made outside the country, in terms of Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the appellant was not liable to pay any d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rder before the Tribunal. 8. The Tribunal, though recorded that in case the appellant had paid duty at higher rate, the same was refundable to it, but still upheld the demand along with interest, however, set aside the penalty. 9. The submission on behalf of the appellant is that once as per provisions of the Act and the Rules, the appellant was not liable to pay duty on export of goods outside the country and in case any duty was paid, the same was refundable. Even if, by mistake the duty was paid at a lesser rate by the appellant and the same was refunded to it. The effect being revenue neutral, no demand should have been raised by the Adjudicating Authority. He further submitted that the mistake occurred in view of Clause 4.1 of Ch....