9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 716X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ni For the Appellant Mrs. Kavitha Podwal, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG Appellants have filed these four appeals against different impugned orders all dated 29.8.2016 whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeals of the appellant and upheld the Orders-in-Original. Since the issue involved in all the four appeals is identical, therefore, all the four app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... illment of export obligation, the Original Authority vide Order No.62/2015 dated 21.12.2015 confirmed a short levy of duty amounting to Rs. 4,14,274/- (even though total duty saved amount as per the license is Rs. 4,90,185/-, there is an unutilized duty portion of Rs. 75,911/-) along with applicable interest in respect of the goods imported against the EPCG Authorization. Aggrieved by the Order-in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obligation for the reasons beyond their control such as non-receipt of funds in time from the Ministry of Food Processing Industries. It is his further submission that in such a situation the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel comes into operation and the respondent is restrained from taking punitive action against the defaulter. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned orders and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of the Notification as a result of which both the authorities have confirmed the demand and short-levy amounting to Rs. 4,14,274/- along with applicable interest. Further, I find that the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case because the appellant have admittedly failed to discharge the export obligation as required under the said Notifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
