2017 (3) TMI 1198

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t Rep. by Ms. Seema Jain, Advocate for the respondent ORDER Per B. Ravichandran: The Revenue is aggrieved by the order dated 31.05.2010 of Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala liable to central excise duty. The dispute in the present appeal relates to non-payment of duty by the respondent for the period July and August, 2008 i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iod in dispute. 2. The Revenue, in the grounds of appeal, submitted that the new Rule 14 A inserted w.e.f. 5.3.2009 should be held as clarificatory and the respondent should not have exported the goods without payment of duty. Further, it was submitted that though the original order discusses about the export of the goods by the respondent, no clear finding has been recorded for the goods manufac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stic market. Further, regarding application of Rule 14 A to the relevant period, ld. Advocate submitted that the provisions cannot be retrospectively made. Even the amendment carried out did not satisfy the same as a clarificatory one. No such inference can be made, when the said Rule deals with specific provision of law. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 6. The onl....