9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 576X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enying them the benefit of exemption under Notification Nos. 30/97, 48/99 and 51/2000 for the period 1997-2001. The demand is on the main ground that the raw materials imported by the appellants on the strength of 12 Advance Licences issued by the Director-General of Foreign Trade ( DGFT , in short) in the DEEC scheme during the material period were not actually used for manufacture of export goods but diverted to the market. The penalty is based on findings of suppression etc. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the demand of duty is unsustainable on the facts of the case inasmuch as the appellants had utilised the imported goods for manufacture of export goods, exported the latter goods, got the DEEC Books logged and obtained the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest manufactured through job workers. Therefore, the finding of the adjudicating authority that no part of the export goods had been manufactured in the appellants premises is not correct. It is further submitted that the Jt. DGFT s order dated 10-12-2003 has not been challenged by the Department and, therefore, the Commissioner s findings contra to those recorded in the said order cannot be sustained. Ld. Counsel thus claims a strong prima facie case. 2. Ld. SDR opposes this claim on the strength of a judgment of the Hon ble Madras High Court in South India Exports, Chennai and Others v. Jt. DGFT and Another [2004 (177) E.L.T. 57 (Mad.) = 2004 (91) ECC 555 Mad.]. It is submitted that orders similar to the one passed by the Jt. DGFT on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d manufactured the export goods by utilising the imported raw materials in their declared premises. Ld. SDR has also argued on the merits of the Jt. DGFT s order. We note that the Hon ble High Court itself found, that it had no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over similar orders of the Jt. DGFT. Similarly, it is not open to us to sit in judgment over the legality, or otherwise, of the Jt. DGFT s order dated 10-12-2003. In Para 13 of its judgment, the Hon ble High Court made certain observation, which has been heavily relied on by the SDR. This observation reads thus : however, we must say and express that there is hardly any reference to the evidence in that order, which evidence is undoubtedly presently available with the Customs authoritie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
