CCE Vs. SHYAM TELECOM LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to filing of this appeal are, in brief, as under: -

(2.) THE respondents are manufacturers of Repeaters falling under Chapter sub -heading no. 85.25 of the Tariff. During the period of dispute, i.e. 2005 -2006 and 2006 -2007, they exported the finished goods manufactured by them without payment of duty, under bond, in terms of the provisions of notification no. dated 26.6.2001 read with Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The department issued a show cause notice dated 10.04.2010 for demand of duty forgone on the ground that the remittance for the goods exported has not been received and as the export proceeds have not been received, the export cannot be treated as exports. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner vide order -in -original dated 23.06.2011 by which the above mentioned duty demand was confirmed along with interest and penalty of equal amount was imposed. However, on an appeal being filed to the Commissioner (Appeals) against this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order -in -appeal dated 27.11.2012 set aside the Asstt. Commissioner's order and allowed the appeal observing that there is no condition regarding receipt of the export proceeds in Rule 19 or in the notification issued under this rule. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed by the Revenue.

(3.) SHRI G.K. Mahajan, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 permits export of the excisable goods manufactured by a manufacturer without payment of duty under bond or LUT, that the procedure and the conditions for export under bond without payment of duty is prescribed under notification no. , that in this notification, there is no condition that the export proceeds must be received, that when no such condition has been prescribed neither either in the Rule 19 or in the notification issued under this rule, the same cannot be invoked, and that in view of this, there is no infirmity in the impugned order.