9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e adjudicating authority to decide the issue de novo - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Customs Appeal No.50935 of 2017 - C/A/56563/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 13-9-2017 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) (Rep by Sh. Kishore Kr. Acharya S.N. Panda, Adv.) for the Appellant (Rep. by Sh. Govind Dixit, DR) for the Respondent ORDER Per: (Dr.) Satish Chandra The present appeal is filed by the assessee-Appellants against the Order-in-Original No.06/NKU/(09)/ADG(Adj.)/DRI/N.Delhi/2016-17 dated 09.02.2017 passed by the Addl. Director (Adj.), DRI, New Delhi. The period in dispute is 2013-14. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, during the period under consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur attention to the CBEC s Circular No.45/2016 dated 23.09.2016 wherein the situation for availing the simultaneous benefit has been discussed. The Ministry directed that pending issues relating to the simultaneous issuance or availing of zero duty EPCG/Post Export EPCG and SHIS shall be decided in terms of the Public Notice. The learned counsel submits that when the Board Circular has been issued, then the matter will have to be decided as per the Public Notice (supra). To support his contention, he relied upon the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Paper Products Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, 1999 (112) ELT 765 (SC), wherein it is stated that Board Circular is binding on the Department. To conclude h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of C.I.T Vs Sant Ram Mangat Ram Jewellers, 264 ITR 564 SC and CIT vs INSIL Co. Ltd., 278 ITR 1 SC. 7. Moreover, during the course of arguments, it was stated that there is a mistake in computation of the demand for the reason that the Public Notice dated 08th September, 2016 (supra) has given an Annexure for getting the benefit in different years, which was not followed by the adjudicating authority. 8. By considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the Circular is binding on the Department as per the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Patna Vs Usha Martin Industri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
