9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 1096 - AT - CustomsConversion of free shipping bills into shipping bills under VKGUY scheme - benefit under VKGUY scheme - principles of natural justice - Held that - endorsement is sought on the free shipping bill based on the basis of documentary evidence, which was in existence, at the time the goods were cleared or exported. Thus, the Commissioner is in error in refusing to allow amendment and/or endorsement on the shipping bills in question, the refusal being against the mandate of Section 149 of the Act - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Conversion of free shipping bills to shipping bills under VKGUY scheme under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Principles of natural justice violation due to lack of personal hearing. 3. Appeal jurisdiction - Commissioner (Appeals) vs. Tribunal. 4. Time limitation for filing appeal. 5. Examination norms for shipping bills under VKGUY scheme. Analysis: Issue 1: Conversion of shipping bills under VKGUY scheme The appellant exported raw cotton under free shipping bills but later requested conversion to shipping bills under the VKGUY scheme. The appellant argued that they were entitled to benefits under the VKGUY scheme as per relevant regulations. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, stating that the appeal against the Commissioner's order does not lie before him. However, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and directing the Commissioner to endorse the shipping bills as requested by the appellant. Issue 2: Violation of principles of natural justice The appellant contended that they were not granted a personal hearing before the rejection of their request for conversion of shipping bills. They argued that this lack of opportunity to explain their oversight regarding the VKGUY scheme violated the principles of natural justice. While the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, the Tribunal did not address this specific issue in its judgment. Issue 3: Appeal jurisdiction There was a dispute over the appropriate forum for filing the appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appeal should have been filed before the Tribunal instead. The appellant filed the appeal within the stipulated time, excluding the period spent before the wrong forum. The Tribunal accepted the appeal and provided relief to the appellant, emphasizing that the time taken before the Commissioner (Appeals) would not count towards any limitation. Issue 4: Time limitation for filing appeal The appellant filed the appeal within the time limit of 60 days before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appeal should have been filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, considered the appeal timely and allowed it, disregarding the Commissioner's jurisdictional ruling. Issue 5: Examination norms for shipping bills under VKGUY scheme The appellant argued that the examination norms applicable to DEEC shipping bills were not followed, but this should not be a sufficient reason for rejecting the conversion of shipping bills under the VKGUY scheme. The appellant relied on a previous Tribunal decision to support their argument. The Tribunal did not delve into this issue specifically but focused on granting relief to the appellant regarding the endorsement of shipping bills. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the Commissioner to endorse the shipping bills as requested by the appellant. The judgment addressed various legal issues related to the conversion of shipping bills under the VKGUY scheme, appeal jurisdiction, and time limitations, providing relief to the appellant based on the interpretation of relevant laws and regulations.
|
