ORDER
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit, we take up the appeal itself, inasmuch as the issue is covered by the earlier decision of the Tribunal as also by the Board’s Instructions.
2. Demand of Rs. 90,714.00 (Rupees ninety thousand seven hundred and fourteen) has been confirmed against the applicant/appellant-company on the ground that during the period from 5-11-98 to 31-7-99, the appellant-company had cleared the goods under export without payment of duty under 219 Nos. of AR-4s. However, in respect of six AR-4s, there has been a shortage of 33.300 MTs. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against them for which recovery of the duty on account of the shortage of the Ferro Alloys which the appellants are exporting. The appellants’ explanation is that the said shortages are covered by all the AR-4s. But during the relevant period, the allegation of shortage has been restricted only to six AR-4s and that too is on account of handling loss which is only to the tune of 14%. The above plea was not accepted by the lower authorities who confirmed the demand as proposed in the notice and imposed personal penalty of Rs. 2,000.00 (Rupees two thousand) upon the appellant-company. Our attention has been drawn by Shri K.K. Acharya, learned Advocate, for the appellants, to a letter dated 12-2-87 written by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, to the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Bhubaneswar laying down that in respect of Charge Chrome, a bulk item, the Board had considered that shortages on account of handling and transit loss up to 1% in case of Charge Chrome clearances from the factory to the stage of export, could be considered for condonation.
3. Based upon the above letter, the Tribunal in the appellants’ own case vide its Order No- S-1141/A-1174/KOL/2001, dated 12-10-2001 [2002 (149) E.L.T. 527 (Tri.)] held in their favour and had dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. While doing so, the Tribunal had also taken note of the earlier Order in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1993 (66) E.L.T. 464 (Tribunal).
4. Inasmuch as the issue is covered in favour of the appellant-company, we set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants. Stay petition also gets disposed of.