9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1003X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) TMI 531 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]. Accordingly, following the binding precedent and for the reasons alike, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals. - Decided in favor of assessee. - Appeals No. C/59412 & 59441/2013-CU[DB] - Final Orders No.50048-50049/2016 - Dated:- 13-1-2016 - MR. ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. R.K. SINGH, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Mr. Piyush Kumar, Advocate And Mr. Umang Srivastava, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ranjan Khanna, DR ORDER PER MR. R.K. SINGH : Appeals are filed against Order-in-Original dated 28.05.2013 in terms of which the impugned goods, i.e., readymade garments, leather goods, etc. valued at ₹ 12,93,50,999.40 were held to be liable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of CC Export Vs. Kultar Export [2013 (288) ELT 187 (Del.)]. He also added that Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi vide his Order-in-Appeal No.CC(A) CUS/321-322/2013, dated 31.05.2013 in the case of Bangla Dom set aside a similar Order-in-Original and ordered de novo adjudication in the light of the Delhi High Court order in the case of CC Export Vs. Kultar Export (supra). The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the CBEC vide circular No.F.No.276/149/2012-CX.8A(Cus), dated 15.11.2012 accepted the order of the said Delhi High Court and no appeal was preferred thereagainst. In the cases of AKS Apparels Vs. Union of India in W.P.(C) No.2548/2013, dated 03.09.2013, Delhi High Court followed the order in the case of CC Export Vs. Kultar Export (su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ack was admissible during the relevant period also. Para 14 of the said judgement is reproduced below:- 14. We are not inclined to confirm such huge liability for past periods based on Circulars which were in the knowledge of the department and which were not implemented. We would like to rely more on the legal provisions. The only legal provision relied upon is Rule 3 of the Drawback Rules. We agree with the interpretation to this Rule given by the Board in Circular 16/2009-Cus. The argument that this interpretation is applicable from date of issue of Circular 16/2009-Cus. is repugnant to logic because the Rule has remained the same except for amendment on 13-7-2006, to take care of incidence and rebate of Service Tax. So we are not i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
