9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f law, by the order dated 28.01.2011. " 1. Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT was correct in holding that there is no evidence of any raw material having been physically diverted and used for purposes other than for fulfilment of export obligation under the VABAL. When there was no sufficient stock of raw materials and / or finished goods to manufacture and export the balance quantity of 2018.46 Mts which was shown to have been exported for the purpose of fulfillment of export obligation against the aforesaid advance licence (VABAL) was available at the time of verification of stock by DRI and further corroborated by the deposition of Sri Jawahar Babu in his statement dated 11.06.98 that they sold the imported goods at Chennai. 2. Whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as hereunder. The respondent / assessee imported duty free raw material against advance license dated 28.10.1994. A search was conducted in the business premises of the assessee, resulting in a show cause notice dated 10.12.1994, as to why the benefit under the DEEC scheme under various customs notifications should not be denied to the assessee for having not fulfilled the conditions in the notifications, why confiscation should not be ordered under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the alleged ground of misutilisation of raw material, why duty should not be demanded under Section 28(1) of the Act, why interest should not be levied under Section 28B of the Act and why penalty shou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee. 5. Before proceeding to decide the matter on merits, what is first required to be considered is whether any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. As against the order passed by the tribunal, an appeal lies to this Court under Section 130 of the Act and the appeal is entertainable if the court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. Therefore, the Court has to first consider as to whether substantial questions of law arises for consideration in this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the revenue vehemently contended that the observations made by the tribunal as well as the Commissioner in the de-novo adjudication order are wholly unsustainable and contrary to the findings rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... validity of the order passed by the tribunal dated 16.01.2002. After remand, the Commissioner took up the matter for de-novo adjudication and passed a very detailed order, in which the stock position has been taken into consideration and the findings recorded in paragraph 45 of the order of the Commissioner will clearly show that the Commissioner has, with due application of mind, analyzed the stock position and then came to the conclusion that the proposal made in the show cause notice dated 10.12.1999 cannot be sustained. The order passed by the Commissioner was tested by the tribunal at the instance of the revenue and the tribunal, after taking into consideration the submissions, found that there is absolutely no material in the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
