TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (8) TMI 152
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Notification No. 32/97-Cus. dated 1-4-97. Condition No. (v) for the benefit of exemption under the Notification was that the jobbing should be undertaken in terms of the procedure set out in the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 1996 Rules') One of the other substantive conditions was that imported goods were to be utilized only for the discharge of export obligation and no part thereof should be sold, loaned, transferred or otherwise used or dispose of. The Commissioner of Customs (Exports) issued show-cause notice dated 12-3-07 to M/s. APP Enterprises demanding duty of Customs on the raw material imported and cleared under six Bills of En....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s each were imposed on two partners of the firm. No penalty, however, was imposed on M/s. Mathan Traexim Ltd., the biggest partner in the above firm. Appeal No. C/150/08 of the partnership firm and appeal Nos. C/151/08 & C/152/08 of its two partners (penalized by the Commissioner) are against the above decision of the adjudicating authority. Appeal No. 200/08 filed by the Revenue is for imposing a penalty on M/s. Mathan Traexim Ltd. 2. In the Revenue's appeal, M/s. APP Enterprises were cited as respondents, though relief was claimed again M/s. Mathan Traexim Ltd. The appellant has filed a miscellaneous application for amending the respondents' name as M/s. Mathan Traexim Ltd., No. 605/1A, Sri Nagar, Shakur Basti, Delhi. After hearing both ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....port to the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 5. Under Rule 6, the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise acknowledged the receipt of the Bills of entry from the Asst. Commissioner of Customs. The requirement of giving information to the Range Officer and the requirement or maintaining account under Rule 7 were also fulfilled by the party. The claim of M/s. APP Enterprises of having followed the procedure laid down under the above Rules has not been rebutted in the Commissioner's order. We have also seen on record documentary evidence of the party and the departmental officers concerned having acted in terms of the Rules. The documents produced by the assessee include A.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in their reply to the SCN. The only basis for the impugned demand of duty is the alleged diversion of raw material without being put to the intended use. As rightly contended by the assessee, where they had generated 20% Tannin (a little more than the maximum found in the FAQ's study), there is no scope for alleging that the raw material which was shown to have been put to the intended use in accordance with the procedure laid down under the 1996 Rules was diverted. Ld. Commissioner has failed to meet the arguments advanced by the assessee through their reply to the SCN. The jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner granted permission for destruction of the waste raw material. There is no finding in the impugned order that this permission was not....