TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 217
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the appellant. Since the issue involved in all the 11 appeals is same, all the 11 appeals have been taken up together for discussion and disposal. The details of all the 11 appeals are given herein below:- Sl. No. OIO No. and date Duty demanded (Rs.) 1 1/2009 dt. 20/01/2009 2,79,732 2. 2/2009 dt. 20/01/2009 15,918 3. 3/2009 dt. 20/01/2009 67,568 4. 4/2009 dt. 20/01/2009 2,82,307 5. 5/2009 dt. 20/01/2009 4,903 6. 6/2009 dt. 20/01/2009 2,50,768 7 7/2009 dt. 20/01/2009 5,690 8 8/2009 dt. 20/01/2009 86,504 9 9/2009 dt. 20/01/2009 10,976 10 10/2009 dt. 20/01/2009 38,012 11 11/2009 dt. 20/01/2009 2,48,219 Total 12,90,597 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er following the principles of natural justice has held that as the duty-free goods procured under Notification No.43/2001-CE(NT) dt. 26/06/2001 having been used in the manufacture of final products exported against fulfillment of obligation under Advance License, the Central Excise duty forgone on the goods procured duty-free would become recoverable. Aggrieved by the Order-in-original, appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner(Appeals) who rejected the same. Hence the present appeals. 3. Heard both sides and perused records. 4.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts as well as the legal provisions. He f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the requisite conditions and mainly the condition that the duty-free raw materials would be used for the manufacture /export of the final product viz. 'seasoning powder'. VI. There is no dispute about the fact that the appellants had manufactured and exported the final product viz. 'seasoning powder'. 4.2. He further submitted that it is an admitted fact that the appellants had procured raw materials without payment of excise duty on the strength of Annexure-I issued by the Deputy Commissioner having jurisdiction over their unit under Notification No.43/2001- CE(NT) dt. 26/06/2011. The said Annexure-I was issued after the Department was satisfied that the appellants had fulfilled all the requirements to procure goods without pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001 had been alleged, then the demand of duty on the raw material on the ground that the terms and conditions of a separate customs notification stood violated has no merit. He further submitted that the appellants have not violated any conditions of Notification No.43/2001-CE dt. 26/06/2001 and therefore the demand of duty under Section 11A by both the authorities is not legally tenable. He further submitted that the item imported without payment of duty by the appellant against Advance Authorisation in terms of Notification No.93/2004-Cus. dt. 10/09/2p004 was 'Monosodium Glutamate Fine Crystals' and those procured under Notification No.43/2001-CE(NT) dt. 26/06/2001were raw materials such as beef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../06/2001. Further he submitted that for violations of customs notification, only the jurisdictional Customs authorities are competent to take action. But in the present case, the excise duty has been demanded without alleging violation of Notification No.43/2001- CE dt. 26/06/2001. It is his further submission that the imposition of penalties under Rule 25 is also not sustainable in law because the conditions for imposition of penalty under Rule 25 are not fulfilled at all in the present case. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the appellants have procured raw material without payment of duty under Notification No.43/2001-CE dt. 26/06/2001 issued under Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rule....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6/06/2011 issued under Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Further we find that that there is no dispute that the appellants have manufactured and exported the final product i.e. 'seasonign powder' by using the various raw materials which were imported as well as procured from DTA. Further we find that there is no violation of the Notification No.43/2001 by the appellant as the appellant has fulfilled all the conditions of the said Notification. Further we find that if at all, there is a violation then it is the violation of the Notification No.93/2004-Cus. dt. 10/09/2004 for which only the Customs authorities can initiate action to deny the benefit of Customs duty exemption and not the Excise authorities to demand duty under Sect....