TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (9) TMI 179
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tured and cleared mohair polyester blended hank yarn valued at Rs. 29,61,000/- during the quarter April 1994 to June 1994 without payment of duty in terms of exemption provided under Notification No. 1/93. But they exhausted the exemption limit of Rs. 30 lakhs on 1-7-1994 when they cleared mohair polyester blended hank yarn valued at Rs. 2,10,000/- vide Invoice No. 20 dated 1-7-1994. They again during the quarters July 1994 to September 1994 and October 1994 to December 1994 cleared this very yarn without payment of duty, even after having availed full exemption of Rs. 30 lakhs. They were accordingly served with two show cause notices one dated 3-4-1995 vide which demand of Rs. 71,55,338.73 for the period 4/94 to 12/94 was raised from them and second dated 28-9-1995 through which duty demand of Rs. 2,10,577.50 for the period 1/95 to 3/95 was made on the ground that after availing the benefit of exemption limit of Rs. 30 lakhs they were liable to pay the duty on the clearances and that they were also not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 90/94-C.E., dated 25-4-1994 in respect of mohair polyester blended yarn cleared on plain reel hanks. 3. The appellants contested the cor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....having been raised after the period of six months. Secondly, that the benefit of Rules 12, 12A, 13, 14, Circulars Nos. 15/89, dated 6-3-1989, 105/16/95-CX, dated 2-3-1995, 229/63/96-CX, dated 7-8-1996 and Notifications Nos. 1/93, 47/94, dated 22-9-1994, 49/94, dated 22-9-1994 had been wrongly denied to appellants by the Commissioner. Therefore, his impugned order deserves to be set aside. 7.On the other hand, the learned SDR has only reiterated the correctness of the Commissioner's impugned order vide which he held the demands within time and denied the benefit of the Rules, Board's circulars and the notifications referred to above, to the appellants. 8.We have heard both the sides and gone through the record. 9.In order to appreciate the first contention of the learned counsel that the demands are time barred, it would be beneficial to refer to the dates of both the show cause notices and the period for which the duty demand had been raised therein. The first show cause notice is dated 3-4-1995 wherein the duty demand had been raised for the period 4/94 to 12/94. The second show cause notice is dated 28-9-1995 through which the duty had been demanded for the period 1/95 to 3/95....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rves. The blankets and scarves are exported by them from the Focal Point Factory. Being SSI unit, the appellants had been availing the benefit of Notifications No. 1/93, dated 28-2-1993, 47/94 and 49/94, both dated 22-9-1994. They brought this fact to the notice of the Excise Department also vide letter dated 15-11-1994. 11.To prove the export of their goods, the appellants had placed on record volume of evidence. The copies of the documents had been also attached with the written submissions filed by their counsel. The documents produced include copies of invoices, bills of lading and shipping bills. The correctness of these documents was never doubted by the Revenue department before the adjudicating authority. Even the adjudicating authority in the impugned order has not questioned the correctness of these documents. These documents were enough to prove the export of the goods by the appellants during the period in question. The view of the adjudicating authority that after 9-11-1994 no AR-4s had been produced which were essential for proving the export of the goods, cannot be accepted to be correct as after that date no export of the goods (blankets) was made by the appellants....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for having failed to comply with the procedural requirements which according to the authority was mandatory. Under both these notifications the exemption was available to the inputs used in the manufacture of the export goods. But on this technical ground of non-compliance with the procedural requirement, the benefit of these notifications should not have been denied to the appellants by the adjudicating authority, when there was an ample evidence on the record to prove the actual export of the goods by them. In Alpha Garments v. CCE, 1996 (86) E.L.T. 600 the Tribunal had taken the view that the actual export of the goods was enough to grant rebate and procedural lapses had to be condoned as they led to no loss of the revenue to the Government. The benefit of the ratio of the law laid down in this case should have been extended to the appellants also by the adjudicating authority for allowing them the benefit of the abovesaid notifications and Rules 12 and 13 of the Central Excise Rules. 12.Similarly, the benefit of the Board's Circular No. 15/89 dated 6-3-1989 prescribing nil rate of duty on intermediate goods produced and used in the manufacture of the excisable goods exported ....