9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 782X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) and Mr C J Mathew, Member(Technical) Shri B V Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri M Chandra Bose, Additional Commissioner /AR for the Respondent ORDER [Order per: C J Mathew, Member (Technical)] Appeal arises against order-in-original no. 01/2009-Adjn.-Cus, dated 15 th January 2009 of Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise Service Tax, Hyderabad and the dispute is before us for the second time; on the former occasion, the matter was remanded back to the original authority with certain specific directions. 2. Appellant had been issued with licence dated 19th March 1996 for import of capital goods valued at ₹ 26,73,95,635/- (CIF) at nil rate of duty in accordance with notification no. 111/95-Cus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat condition in paragraph 6.3(b) of the EXIM Policy 1997-2002, corresponding to condition no. 6 in notification no. 111/95-Cus dated 5 th June 1995, had not been complied with and, thus, disentitled them from the privilege of exemption. In doing so, the adjudicating authority placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. Lotus Chocolate Co Ltd [2003 (155) ELT 613 (T)]. 3. It is the contention of Learned Counsel for appellant that various decisions of the Tribunal have made it abundantly clear that certification of fulfilment of export obligation cannot be subject to review of adjudicating authorities under Customs Act, 1962. For this, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Tribunal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the present order has become unsustainable in view of the fact the DGFT has granted extension of the term of the licence upto 18th March 2008. In terms of the present extension letter and the Appellants have already given undertaking in the required format to the DGFT and in view of the present position that stay order requires to be modified. As the impugned order has become unsustainable on the ground of the DGFT granting extension of the license to fulfil the export obligation, the impugned order is required to be set aside and the matter is required to be remanded to the original authority for de novo consideration. The original authority is required to initiate proceedings only on the appellants not fulfilling the terms of the EPCG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation certificate issued by licensing authority has been rejected. Be that as it may, there is no need to differ with that consistent view which has also been endorsed by Hon ble High Court of Madras. 7. The conditions governing the import by the appellant had been attained substantially and with the restriction of the value of imported goods to that actually effected it is impossible to fulfil the condition of a minimum import value of ₹ 5,00,00,000. It was, therefore, not proper for the adjudicating authority to hold that the appellant had violated the condition of the notification. 8. The terms of the remand are very clear; the only issue left for the adjudicating authority was to determine fulfilment of the export obligation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
