2017 (5) TMI 30

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Singh The appellants are in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No.24/CE/Appl/DLH-IV/2010 dated 16.03.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi-I, Faridabad. 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacture-exporter. The appellant had filed a B-1 Bond on 29.06.2009 for Rs. 5,00,000/- for removal of excisable goods without payment of duty to a unit o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellants asking them as to why their facility to clear the goods without payment of Central Excise duty under B-1 Bond dated 21.04.2006 should not be withdrawn. The nature of adverse notice was not specified in the show cause notice. 2.3 In the adjudication, the Assistant Commissioner observed that since the party has already come to adverse notice of the department in the matter of excess un-ac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the appellants submits that the Circular dated 31.12.1996 is not longer valid as has been clarified in the Circular No.586/23/2001-CX dated 12.09.2001 (para 2). He also argued that the Circular dated 30.04.2003 mentioned in the show cause notice is only applicable to merchant exporters and not to the manufacturer exporters. 4. Ld. A.R. submits that since there was an adverse notice against t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tice. To that extent, the show cause notice is flawed as it is an accepted principle that full nature of allegation should be informed to the noticee. In the adjudication order and in the appellate order, the only adverse notice which has been mentioned pertains to excess un-accounted material valued at Rs. 27,72,704/- by the appellants. In this regard, during the previous hearing on 22.11.2016, t....