9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the release of imported goods against the licence on the ground that the advance licences was issued subsequent to the date of import and it cannot be used for goods imported earlier and on which customs duty is payable in terms of Section 72(1) - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. C/118/2010 - FO/76051/2018 - Dated:- 14-5-2018 - SHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And SHRI BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri N.K. Kothari, CA for the Appellant (s) Shri S. Guha, AC(AR) for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per Shri Bijay Kumar The appeal has been filed by the appellant against the Order-in- Original No.KOL/CUS/Port/08/2010 dated 26.02.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same cannot be varied by another adjudication authority. In this regard they relied on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs [2004(172) ELT 1454(S.C)]. It is also submitted that the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order has grossly erred when he upheld that the demand notice dated 31.01.2007 was issued invoking the conditions of the bond for exporting the goods. Ld. Commissioner further erred when he failed to identify the specific conditions in the bond under which impugned demand notice has been issued and further erred when he ignored the communication issued by the Licensing Authority vide letter dated 08.03.2006, wherein it has been stated that the export obligati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sequently been issued by the licensing authority. The matter is no more res integra in view of judgment in the case of U.K.Paint Industries vs. Commr. Of Customs (supra), wherein at para- 13 it is mentioned as under: 13. The aforesaid paragraphs clearly indicate that only when duty was payable, interest was chargeable and when because of an exemption, as in case of production of advance licences, no duty was payable, no interest was chargeable. In the case of Pratibha Processors (supra) the warehousing period had come to an end on 3rd March, 1991 and on or about 9th May, 1991, the importer had filed bill of entry for home consumption and had produced advance licences. The facts are, therefore, identical. The legal ratio of Pra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
