TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 217
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 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 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are manufacturers of season....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder 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 further submitted in the written submissions that there are undisputed facts which are as under:-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 payment of duty under Notification No.43/2001. He also submitted that Notification No.43/2001-CE dt. 26/06/2001 issued under rule 19(2)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 read, shrimp read, beef concentrate, shrimp concentrate, chicken concentrate, sugar, packing materials etc. It is his further submis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 Rules, 2002. He further submitted that the Advance Authorisation scheme clearly debars the exporters from availing the facilities under Ru....