9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . ORDER Per R.K. Singh : Appeal is filed against order-in-appeal dated 27.4.2010 in terms of which the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the redemption fine of Rs. 2,70,000/- and penalty of Rs. one lakh on the appellant on the ground that it imported new radial tyres on a date after 24.11.2008 when imports of such tyres were restricted by DGFT in terms of Notification No. 64(RE)/20082004-2009 dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ELT 38 (P&H) and also in the case of Viraj Impex Ltd. Vs. CC, Mumbai - 2004 (177) ELT 960 (Tri.). 3. Ld. DR, on the other hand, contended that in this case there is no contract nor was there any letter of credit established prior to 24.11.2008 and the shipment took place after the restriction was imposed by DGFT. Therefore the impugned order is sustainable. 4. We have considered the contentions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aking part payment against a proforma invoice would constitute concrete steps for import of impugned goods and as these steps were taken prior to 24.11.2008, the ratio of CESTAT judgement in the case of P.T. Impex Pvt. Ltd. (supra) would be applicable. Para 8 of the said judgement is reproduced below :- "8. In the light of the fact that the proforma invoice is dated 30-3-2006, the remittan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble letter of credit. The material on record establishes on the basis of the relevant circumstances that an agreement between the parties for the export and import was entered into and had crystallised prior to the change in the policy. The appellant is entitled to paragraph 1.5 of Chapter 1A of the FTP 2004-09. The decision of this Tribunal in Viraj Impex Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai - 2004 (177) E.L.T. 96 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
