2001 (3) TMI 124

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai. 2.Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Deputy Commissioner confirmed the Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,81,467/- in respect of AR 4 No. 1/98-99 for failure to furnish proof of exports (exports being under bond) by filing the original copy of AR 4. Nor the duplicate copy of the said AR 4 bore any endorsement of Customs authority. He also ordered reco....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....merits. They pleaded reliance on the case laws reported in (i)         1999 (105) E.L.T. 30 (Mad.) (ii)        1993 (66) E.L.T. 497 (Tri.) (iii)       1991 (53) E.L.T. 558 (GOI) (iv)       1993 (67) E.L.T. 759 (GOI) (v)      &nbsp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (c)        1994 (71) E.L.T. 98 (Tri.) (d)        1994 (74) E.L.T. 959 (Tri.) (e)        1990 (47) E.L.T. 90 (Tri.) (f)         1990 (48) E.L.T. 475 (Tri.) and (g)        1989 (44) E.L.T. 775 (Tri.). That the impos....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e packing list were endorsed by the Inspector of Central Excise. That the reverse of the AR 4 reveals that the packings were sealed vide seal No. C. Ex./Bom. III/108 with endorsements made by the Inspector and the Superintendent of Central Excise. That the Delivery challan No. 46 of the applicants bears the Container No. CTZU 462035-4. The same container No. is reflected on the obverse of the AR 4....