9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmission, beyond the permissible limit, was granted. The appellant's plea that it applied for further permission on 09.03.2008, is irrelevant, as the appellant is unable to refer to any order accepting this application. As regards the appeal, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the appeal for want of compliance - appellant's plea that as the unit has since closed down, the appellant has no funds, coul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that the appellant may have made local clearances above the permissible limit of Rs.3,79,77,000/-, is insufficient to invite duty particularly as the appellant's application for grant of further permission was pending consideration. It is further contended that order passed by the Tribunal directing the appellant to deposit entire duty as a pre condition to the hearing of the appeal is illegal a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant was, therefore, required to pay duty on the excess clearance. While considering the appellant's prayer for stay, the learned Tribunal has held that as permission was not granted for clearances beyond the permissible limit, the appellant has not been able to make out a prima-facie case. The appellant was directed to pre-deposit the entire amount. A relevant extract from order, dated 10.10.2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the permitted clearances by an amount of Rs.71,20,105/- and the same cannot be said to be in accordance with the provisions of para 6.8 of the Foreign Trade Policy and hence, would not be eligible for concessional rate of duty. 8. As regards, the period 1.4.2008 to 30.09.2008, the appellant not produced any letter from the Development Commissioner permitting the DTA clearances for this peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant is unable to refer to any order accepting this application. As regards the appeal, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the appeal for want of compliance with order dated 10.10.2012. The appellant's plea that as the unit has since closed down, the appellant has no funds, could have been relevant if the appellant had agreed to deposit some part of the duty claimed. In the absence of any such off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
