9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Policy is concerned even if such clarifications are signed by Joint Director General of Foreign Trade - Appeal is allowed - C/1724/2010 - 1457/2010 - Dated:- 29-10-2010 - S/Shri M.V. Ravindran, B.S.V. Murthy, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Smt. Rukmani Menon, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri D.P. Nagendra Kumar, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. - This is an appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 129(1) of the Custom Act, 1962 against the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore bearing No. 5/2010 dated 16-7-2010 in a remand back case in Final Order No. 1553/09 dated 29-12-2009 for the limited purpose of examining the amendment sheets of DFIA s and any other relevant clarification/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e earliest. 7. The Commissioner, after hearing the appellant, passed an Order No. 14/2009 dated 6-11-2009 rejecting the contentions of the appellant and thereby denying the benefit of Custom Notification for extending the duty benefits. 8. The appellant then filed an appeal before this Tribunal challenging the aforesaid order on various grounds. 9. The Hon. CESTAT, after hearing both sides on the matter, vide Final Order No. 1553/09, dated 29-12-2009, held as under : After hearing both the parties and on going through the written submissions, we are of the opinion that the term Flour and Powder are synonymous, and the flour can therefore be interpreted on a wider scale and cannot be restricted to any powder of a particular gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt sheets and any other relevant clarification/circular to adjudicate the matter afresh following the principles of natural justice . 10. The Commissioner, Mangalore, consequent upon the remand back order, heard the appellant and examined the amendment sheets of the aforesaid DFIA s and passed a detailed order once again rejecting the contentions of the appellant vide order No. 05/2010 dated 16-7-2010. 11. The appellant once again challenged the aforesaid order. 12. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant submitted that the Commissioner has exceeded his jurisdiction by going against specific directions given by the CESTAT in the remand order for the limited purpose of examination of amendment sheets of 3 DFIA s produced by the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A wherein it was observed that No ITC (HS) Numbers were mentioned. It may also be noted that it is not proper for the Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore, to rely upon his predecessor s order, which had already been set aside by the CESTAT. On specific query from the Bench, it was informed that the Tribunal s order dated 29-12-2009 is not challenged before higher juridical fora. 15. Having examined that the original amendment sheets of DFIA s thereto had been duly attested and authenticated by the Jt. DGFT, Mumbai and confirming the same, the commissioner has once again dealt with the whole issue very extensively which is clearly beyond the scope of the remand back order. 16. It is well settled in law that classification/clarification on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
