COMMISSIONER OF C EX, LUDHIANA Vs. RAKESH NAYYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgement shall dispose of CEA No. 6 of 2005 and CEA No. 7 of 2005, as common questions of law and facts arise in both these appeals. However, the facts are being extracted from CEA No. 6 of 2006.

(2.) The revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short hereinafter referred to as the Act') against the order dated 6-7-2004 [2004 (172) E.L.T. 357 (Tri.-Del.)] of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short CESTAT) on the ground that the following questions of law arise for our consideration :-

(3.) The facts are that M/s. Woolways (India) Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent') are manufacturer-exporter of Acrylic Yarn and Acrylic Knitwear Garments. The Respondents have been duly recognised as an Export House by the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce, New Delhi. The Respondents normally operated under duty exemption scheme of the Export Import policy during the period in dispute. For this purpose, they obtained advance licences from time to time in terms of duty exemption scheme under EXIM policy. In terms of the advance license scheme, they imported raw materials like acrylic fibre, dies etc. required for the manufacture of export goods viz. Acrylic knitwear garments. It seems that till date, the Respondents appeared to have fulfilled all the export obligations for all the advance licences.