9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e DGFT issued the Licence dated 9-5-2000 with an endorsement at clause 11 to the effect that the licence shall be valid for the goods already shipped/arrived provided Customs duty has not been paid and the goods have not been cleared from Customs. Subsequently, the respondents filed ex-Bond Bill of Entry dated 17-5-2000 for release of the goods on payment of concessional duty vide Notification No. 49/2000-Cus., dated 27-4-2000. Revenue proceeded against the respondents proposing demand of differential duty on the ground that the concessional rate came into existence only on 1-4-2000 and in the instant case, the goods were shipped prior to that date. The respondents approached the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the appeal of the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ealt with by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in para 9 and 10 of the impugned order. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the inference of the Board s communication is misplaced since para 4.15(C) of the Hand Book of Procedure read with the EXIM Policy merely specifies the validity of an EPCG licence with reference to the date of shipment. Though the licence is issued on 9-5-2000, the validity is reckoned from 3-1-2000 which is the date of shipment from the originating country. DGFT, who issued the licence with validity from 3-1-2000 is the final authority. (ii) It is well settled principle of law that the validity of licence issued by the DGFT cannot be questioned by the customs authorities. The following decisions were relied on b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds, the Notification prevailing is 49/2000-Cus., dated 27-4-2000, the correct rate of duty applicable is only 5% as rightly held by the Commissioner (Appeals) in Para 10.1 of the impugned order. The Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly dealt with the untenability of the inference in Board s communication relied on by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal in the light of Paragraph 4.15(C) of the Handbook of Procedures, Vol. I. He has also rightly held that in matters of licence issued under the EXIM Policy, DGFT will have the last word. As quasi-judicial authority, the Commissioner (Appeals) is not bound by the inter-departmental communication, which in any case, has not clarified the correct legal position. In view of the above observations, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
