2010 (7) TMI 365 - AT - Customs

Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) Appealable order Advance licence Export obligation completed - appellant had taken 12 Advance licences against which they imported duty free machinery and machinery parts - 12 Advance Licences, they have completed Export Obligation and have received Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) - letter dated 16-6-2009 is shutting away the appellant s claim of EODC and casts a liability, it would be correct in law to hold that the letter dated 16-6-2009 can be considered as an Order, and appeal has been filed within time against this letter before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) - set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to re-consider the issue as an appeal and pass a speaking order Appeal allowed

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit.
2. Dismissal of Writ Petition and its impact on the case.
3. Submission of Export Obligation Discharge Certificates (EODCs) for Advance Licences.
4. Consideration of a letter as non-appealable and its implications.
5. Finality of an order due to non-submission of EODCs.
6. Interpretation of a letter as an order and appealability.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a stay petition seeking waiver of pre-deposit of adjudged amounts. The Tribunal found the appeal could be disposed of at that stage due to its narrow scope. The stay petition was allowed, pre-deposit was waived, and the appeal was taken up for disposal.

2. The dismissal of the Writ Petition against the Order-in-Appeal was crucial in the case. The learned Counsel submitted the application and relevant documents indicating the withdrawal of the Writ Petition, which influenced the proceedings.

3. The appellant had taken 12 Advance Licences and completed Export Obligation against them, producing EODCs. However, issues arose regarding the acknowledgment for the 12th Licence. The Adjudicating Authority considered EODCs for 11 licenses but not for the 12th. The appellant applied for rectification under Section 154 of the Customs Act, leading to a series of correspondences and appeals.

4. A letter dated 16-6-2009 was considered non-appealable, causing a fiscal liability on the appellant. The Tribunal interpreted this letter as an order, allowing an appeal against it and remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration.

5. The Respondent argued that the finality of the order passed on 26-11-2008 was due to the non-submission of EODCs before the Adjudicating Authority, emphasizing the importance of timely submissions in legal proceedings.

6. The Tribunal analyzed the letter dated 16-6-2009, considering it as an order and allowing an appeal against it based on the appellant's submission of EODC. The decision was supported by a precedent cited from a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal, leading to the appeal being allowed for remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a comprehensive review and a speaking order.