TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 have not been complied with. As claimed by the Department in the said order in original, it appears the learned Commissioner have refused to comply with the order of the Hon'ble High Court stating that he cannot travel beyond the scope of show cause notice and therefore, refrain from examining the same. We have gone through the entire order in original and we have nowhere found any reference and/or consideration of the said order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 24th may 2013. The order in original impugned herein is not maintainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/60046/2013-CU [ DB ] - C/A/70600/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 4-7-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of Section 61(1)(a) and 61(1)(aa) were not applicable in their case as the goods covered against these bonds were not capital goods intended for use in any 100% EOU. It was communicated by the Department to appellant vide office letter C. No.1783 dated 30 August, 2010. That as per provisions of Section 61(1)(b), the warehousing period in their case is only one year. Since the goods covered in the impugned bond have already been in the warehouse for about two years, accordingly, the appellant importer was asked to pay the duty along with interest on these warehoused goods and clear them immediately. Further allegation of Revenue is that the appellant instead of complying with the said office letter, intimated vide the letter dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been pleased to order and permit re-export the imported goods as per list Annexure A and B in respect of which Double Duty Bound were submitted to this office. The warehousing period has also been extended for a further period of six months. Thereafter, as it appears that for want of jurisdiction the matter was referred to the office of the Chief Commissioner to consider the matter of extension of warehousing period as well as permission for re-export. The said issue was considered by the Chief Commissioner, as has been recorded in para-3.3 of the impugned OIO, wherein it is recorded Hon'ble Chief Commissioner of Customs, Meerut Zone, Meerut vide his order dated 09 February, 2011 on Note Sheet page 13 14 (of C. No VIII (30) CUS/CMA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice being reply dated 22 November, 2011. Further, during the pendency of the adjudication of the SCN they moved the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in writ tax petition being writ tax No. 579 of 2013 for seeking permission to re-export mentioning therein that their application dated 07 March, 2011 filed before the Commissioner of Customs Noida for obtaining permission to re-export of the goods which are lying in the warehouse within his jurisdiction is still pending and not been decided So far. The Hon'ble High Court in results of the parties disposal requisition by passing the following order: We see no reason why the aforesaid applications of the petitioner (07/03/2011 and 22/11/2011) are not been disposed of by the respondent C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner of Customs, Noida, Customs Commissionerate stating with reference to the query of this Tribunal dated 11/01/2017 as follows: In this regard, it is submitted that the said order dated 24 May, 2013 of Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad was accepted and in compliance, the petitioner's application was decided by the Commissioner, Noida Customs vide order-in-original no. 10/Commissioner/Customs/2013 dated 04/07/2013. Enclosing an order which is the impugned order for hearing. 11. Having considered the rival contentions we find that the order of Hon'ble High Court dated 24 May, 2013 have not been complied with. As claimed by the Department in the said order in original, it appears the learned Commissioner have refused to com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|