2017 (11) TMI 1537

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n, Advocate JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is presented by the Revenue, challenging the Final Order No.20203/2016 dated 3.2.2016, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bengaluru (for short 'Tribunal'), on the ground that the following question of law arises for consideration:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CESTAT was rig .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t US$31,84,000 (` 19,97,96,000/-). 4. The respondent filed five DEEC declarations along with invoices and supporting documents in discharge of export obligation against the advance authorization. However, due to technical problems in the Indian Custom EDI System, export promotion shipping bills could not be generated. The screenshot indicated that shipping bills could not be generated as 'no reco .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (Tri.-Bang.)] and one another decision in Kiran Pondy Chems Ltd. vs. CC, Chennai [2006 (203) E.L.T. 588], allowed the appeal, holding that, the facts on record, particularly the documents and declarations available at the time of export supported the case of the respondent and the fault lied with the EDI system of the customs. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the authorities to accept the respo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X