9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct in terms of the Board's circular as the Development Commissioner has satisfied himself with regard to the export obligation, legally sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case especially when the customs department confirmed the demand only after getting the written approval from the Development Commissioner on 06.03.2002 ? (ii) Is the CESTAT justified in upsetting the concurrent findings of the authorities below particularly when they are based on cogent reasons and relevant materials and based on the admission of the respondent that they failed to achieve the required export obligation and NFEP ?" 2. On facts suffice it to notice that the assessee is a 100% Export Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal, however, set aside the demand on the finding that the assessee had satisfied the export in the extended period and the Customs authorities could not have proceeded to take action without the Development Commissioner's permission. It was also found that the Development Commissioner had given a definite conclusion as to the proceedings being dropped and hence the Customs authorities could not have acted in contravention of the dropping of the proceedings by the Development Commissioner. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Department submits that the Tribunal erred in so far as relating the DTA sales concession of Notification No.2/1995 to the permission required under Notification No.13/1981/Customs. It is also submitted that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concession and provided for reversal of the concession, if the obligation is not satisfied. We have raised questions of law, as extracted herein above, which we endevour to answer in the above appeal and the questions agitated are not purely on facts. The resolution of the dispute arising herein is only whether the NFEP had to be satisfied within the stipulated period and if there is a mandate for permission from the Development Commissioner, to proceed to recover the short collection of duty, in the context of non-compliance of NFEP within the stipulated time. The admitted fact is that the respondent did not comply with the NFEP, within the time stipulated in the order of the Development Commissioner. 6. We see from the order of the Deput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he fact that there was dropping of the proceedings without verifying as to which proceeding was dropped by the Development Commissioner. 7. We also see that the Tribunal had relied on Notification No.13/1981 to find that, without the Development Commissioner's sanction, there could be no levy of short duty collected by the Customs authorities. We do not see applicability of Notification at 31/1981 to Notification No.2/1995 and in any event, the Deputy Commissioner, who passed the original order, has by way of abundant caution ensured that the Development Commissioner's permission was obtained, as is evident from Annexure H. In the aforesaid circumstances, we find that the order of the Tribunal is liable to be interfered with. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
