9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n taken note of by the licensing authority to close the matter. In such situation, we find no further issue remains to be decided. The fulfillment of the licensing condition or other related matter cannot be again re-examined as the same has been settled by the competent authority - the impugned order cannot be varied as there is no reason for doing so - appeal dismissed - decided against appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty amount of ₹ 14,20,000/-. On their failure to produce Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) from the DGFT, proceedings were initiated against the appellant to demand the Customs duty forgone due to the above license, read with the said notification. The matter was adjudicated by the original authority who confirmed customs duty liability of ₹ 18,20,000/- on the appellant. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contesting their liability. 3. Ld. AR submitted that the directions to pay customs duty with reference to the Advance Authorization as well as withdrawal of the direction by the DGFT happened before the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant never brought to the notice of Commissioner (Appeals), the proceedings before the DGFT. As such the impugned order is only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iscern any reason for such non-disclosure by the appellant. In fact, in the impugned order it is recorded that Advocate appeared for personal hearing on 07.09.2014 and submitted that substantial benefit cannot be denied for procedural mistake. License utilization was to the extent of ₹ 3.53 Lakhs only. Even at that time the appellants did not disclose the fact that on 5.6.2014 itself, the DG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
