9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the Circular of 2004 and rejected the request for non-fulfillment of condition of that circular. Not only there was no dispute leading to denial of benefit, but the request for conversion has not also been filed within the one month of such denial - there is no infirmity in the order of Commissioner and the same is sustained - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - C/23/2012 - A/60523/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 14-3-2017 - Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Shri Sudeep Singh, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Vijay Gupta, A.R. for the Respondent ORDER Per Devender Singh The appellants are in appeal against the Order-in-Original No.14/Cus./2011 dated 04.11.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Prev. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (216) E.L.T. 67 (Tri.- Chennai) 4. Ld. AR submitted that the Circular No. 36/2010-Cus. dated 23.09.2010 was not applicable in this case as is clarified in para 6 of the said circular that it shall be applicable only to shipping bills filed on or after the date of issuance of this circular. Ld. AR further contended that the Circular 04/2004-Cus. dated 16.01.2004 was applicable in this case as the period is prior to the date of issuance of circular of 2010. He further argued that as per the said circular of 2004, the request for conversion has to be made within one month of the denial/rejection of the benefit claim and the said circular allows conversion only where the benefit of an export promotion scheme claimed by the exporter has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner correctly relied upon the Circular of 2004 and rejected the request for non-fulfillment of condition of that circular. Not only there was no dispute leading to denial of benefit, but the request for conversion has not also been filed within the one month of such denial. In the case of Modipon Ltd. vs. CC, ICD, TKD, New Delhi (supra) r elied upon by the appellants, the request was for conversion from Advance Licence Scheme to DEPB scheme. In the said case, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Commissioner and directed to Commissioner for de novo consideration of the appellants request for amendment of the shipping bills after hearing the appellants as to whether the conditions of the Board Circular dated 16.01.2004. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16.1.04 and entertained undue request of the exporter under a misplaced sympathy. When the goods left India under certain declaration in shipping bill mentioning an incentive scheme and such declaration met scrutiny of Customs from that angle at the time of clearance, no belated switchover to a different scheme is permitted by law for want of scrutiny of the export under the different scheme after export of the goods. Appellant does not have right under law to approach again for change of declaration under law after export is made. Subsequent approach for change proves material suppression of fact in prior declaration questioning conduct of appellant. 5. Declaration of appropriate incentive scheme by exporter in the shipping bills at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
