9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Advocate ORDER Rajive Bhalla, J (Oral) The appellant challenges order dated 10.10.2012 (A-2), directing pre-deposit and order dated 24.01.2013 (Annexure A-1), dismissing the appeal, both passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is an hundred percent export oriente ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the appellant, perused the impugned orders and find no reason to entertain the appeal much less hold that the Tribunal has committed any error of jurisdiction. Admittedly, the appellant is a hundred percent export unit which was allowed to make local clearances, by the Development Commissioner, upto Rs. 3,79,77,000/-. Admittedly the total value of clearances made by the appellant was Rs.4,50,97 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner by Rs.71,20,105/-. The appellant have not produced any letter from the office of the Development Commissioner showing that for the period till 31.03.2008, the quantity of their permitted DTA clearances had been enhanced by the Development Commissioner. Therefore, we are of the prima facie view that for 2007-2008 period i.e. for the period upto 31.3.2008, the DTA clearances made by the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the aforesaid extract does not indicate any error of jurisdiction or of law, on the part of the Tribunal as should invite interference. The appellant is unable to point out any fact or press into service any legal provision that would raise an inference that permission, beyond the permissible limit, was granted. The appellant's plea that it applied for further permission on 09.03.2008, is irrele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
