9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w cannot be brought into for the purpose of 100% EOU Undertaking service activities. The finding of the Commissioner that the payment for DTA sale was not from EEFC Account, is clearly beyond the scope of the show cause notice - C/A/129/2006 - A-148/KOL/2011 - Dated:- 3-5-2011 - S/Shri S.S. Kang, M. Veeraiyan, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri A.K. Sharma, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)]. This is an Appeal against the Order dated 27-12-2005 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Administration Airport), Kolkata. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The Appellants, in pursuance of Letter of Permission (L.O.P. in short) granted by the Development Commissioner se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner granted another permission for DTA sales for 1500 diesel engines, which was subsequently withdrawn by the Development Commissioner. This decision by the Development Commissioner was challenged before the Hon ble High Court and the Order of Cancellation was set aside on the ground that no such cancellation could be done retrospectively. Against the said Order of the Hon ble High Court, the Department filed an SLP before the Hon ble Supreme Court, which has also been dismissed, vide Order dated 28-9-2006. As the subsequent withdrawal of permission granted for DTA sale of 1500 diesel engines has been held to be not permissible, in the present case where the permission granted has not even been withdrawn, the question of holding the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions of para 9.10(b) are not applicable and that the activities undertaken by the Appellants do not amount to manufacture. We find that in respect of the Appellants themselves, subsequent permission granted was withdrawn by the Development Commissioner and the matter has gone up to the Hon ble Supreme Court. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court as affirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court is in favour of the Appellants, holding that such withdrawal retrospectively is not permissible. In the light of the above, the sale in DTA on payment of duty based on the earlier permission granted to the Appellants, cannot be held to be in violation of the provisions of para 9.10(b). Further, the term, Manufacture in the context of Exim Policy includes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
