9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he interim Trade Notices issued by DGFT, detailed analysis of relevant facts and the issues raised by the Appellant in their grounds of Appeal had not been addressed by the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) leading to a cryptic Order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the case needs to be remanded to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the arguments on record in detail and also the retrospective amendment to the notification and provisions of Foreign Trade Policy, while deciding the issue afresh on merit. - Appeal allowed by way of remand - Appeal No. E/1369/2008-DB; E/Others/10299/2016 - - - Dated:- 5-8-2016 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) And Mr. P.M. Saleem, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri Anand Nainawati, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal. 3. The learned Advocate Shri Anand Nainawati for the Appellant has submitted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) order is cryptic and devoid of reasoning and hence unsustainable in law. He has submitted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has simply accepted the trade notice issued by the DGFT bearing No.02/AM 07 dt.02.02.2007 even though its operation was subsequently kept in abeyance by another trade notice No.3/AM 07, dt.07.02.2007 issued by DGFT. It is the sole ground on which the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected their appeal observing that since the earlier trade notice was not withdrawn, therefore, it was valid. He has submitted that even though they have specifically taken in their grounds of Appeal before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e principal manufacturer against DFIA scheme, could be denied. Therefore, recovery of CENVAT Credit is bad in law. He has also submitted that in their reply to the Show Cause Notice, and in the grounds of Appeal before the Ld. Commisioner(Appeals), they have categorically rebutted the allegation of availment CENVAT Credit on any of the imported or indigenously procured inputs/raw material against the Duty Free Import Authorization (DFIA) scheme, but this fact had not been considered by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding the present appeal. 4. Per contra, learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue referring to the said provision, has submitted that no CENVAT Credit facility was available to the Appellant under CENVAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules, 2002 or CENVAT Credit under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 in respect of materials imported/procured against the said authorization has not been availed. 7. The principal argument of the Appellant is that the Customs Notification No.40/2006-Cus, dt.01.05.2006 has been retrospectively amended w.e.f. 01.05.2006 vide Section 93 of Finance Act. By virtue of such amendment, the new Condition (v) inserted reads as under:- that the export obligation as specified in the said authorization (both in value and quantity terms) is discharged within the period specified in the said authorization or within such extended period as may be granted by the Regional Authority by exporting resultant products, manufactured in India which are specified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
