2004 (5) TMI 227

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ceived the letter of admittance of the proof of export from the competent authority. He submits that in respect of 6 AR-4S, involved duty of Rs. 8,23,592.00 could not be issued by the competent authority as the goods could not be exported within the extended period allowed by the competent authority. Only in respect of 2 No. of AR-4S involved duty of Rs. 22,16,639.00 against which proof of admittance have been issued by the competent authority . The appellant has represented the facts that they have already received the letter of admittance of proof of export in respect of 8 AR-4S before Commissioner (Appeals) and accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) without any verification. 2. Secondly, he submits as regards 7 No. of AR-4S where the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....53) E.L.T. 306 (Tri. - Del.) - A.S. Forgings v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh. He submits that in the present case the factum of export has been admitted by the appellant. Under the circumstances, the penal provisions cannot be involved. 4. He, further, submits that regarding 7 No. of AR-4S, where the goods were diverted for home consumption, the duty was paid alongwith the special Excise Duty and interest as evident from page 14 of the paper book. He, further, submits that there was no show cause notice on this count and there was no adjudication regarding the differential duty. He submits that nobody can be condemned unheard. He submits that Show Cause Notices were issued on 3-4-2000, 2-5-2000, 2-6-2000 and 4-7-2000 and As....