2015 (2) TMI 1093

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h, the letter of undertaking cannot be declared invalid by the lower authorities. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order - Decided in favour of assessee.
Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) For the Petitioner : Shri Ravinder Singh , Advocate For the Respondent : Shri A K Dhawan, AR ORDER Per Ashok Jindal : The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the letter of undertaking was declared invalid by the lower authorities. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer exporter and obtained a letter of undertaking to export the goods. It was observed by the adjudicating authority that as per para 13.2 of Part II (2) Chapter 7 of the CBEC Manual of supplementary instruction, the exporter shal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ontention of the learned Counsel and submits that as notification has been issued in Rule 19 and said instruction are also under Rule 31, therefore the special instruction are required to be followed by the appellant, admittedly they have not filed details as per annexure 19 therefore, lower authorities have rightly declared the LOU invalid. 6. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. 7. In this case, the short issue involved before me is that whether the said instructions issued under Rule 31 shall prevail ; over the notification issued by the CBEC or not. The issue came up before the Honble Apex Court in the case of Sandur Micro Circuits (supra) wherein the Honble Apex Court has held in "5. The issue relating to effectiveness .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... information required to be filed in Annexure 19 was in any case available to the Revenue. As such, it remains only a technical or venial breach of provisions of rules, not resulting in any revenue loss to the exchequer. Support in this regard is drawn from the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa reported as [1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 159)]. As such, the penalty imposed to the extent of ₹ 5,000/- in terms of Rules 27 is not justified. The same is accordingly, set aside and appeal allowed with consequential relief." 8. In these circumstances, I hold that the appellant is not required to file details as per annexure 19 to special instruction and as such, the letter of undertaking cannot be dec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X