9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against before the Commissioner (Appeal). Such an endorsement is nothing but part of internal discussions between the two. Commissioner (Appeal) was clearly in error when he entertained the appeal against the endorsement made on the request letter of the Appellants and passed the impugned order. Such an order cannot be sustained. Matter remanded to original adjudicating authority for consideration of the request letter dated 30th July 2008. - APPEAL No. C/1191/2008 - A/85508/2019 - Dated:- 11-1-2019 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical) Ms. P.V. Sekhar, Joint Commissioner (AR), for appellant Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate, for respondent ORDER Per: Sanjiv Srivastava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hould be discharged by exporting resultant products in respect of which rebate of duty or CENVAT credit has not been availed. 2.4 Thus verification of the licenses was completed after making endorsements in the license that import against the DFIA would be allowed subject to payment of applicable additional duty of Customs/ Excise. 2.5 Respondents who had purchased the licenses have vide their letter dated 30.07.2008 requested for deletion of the endorsement made in the authorization. Appraising Officer in his remark to the Assistant Commissioner, on this letter itself mentioned that as no document was submitted to support the fact that CENVAT facility was not availed the request could not be considered at that stage. This remark was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in EXIM Policy prior to 01.04.2007 also supported the said endorsements. 4.1 We have heard Ms P V Sekhar Joint Commissioner, Authorized Representative for the revenue (appellant) and Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate for the respondents. 4.2 Both Authorized Representative and Learned Counsel agree that no order has been passed by the jurisdictional Assistant/ Deputy Commissioner, disposing of the request letter dated 30.07.2008. Since no order has been passed by the jurisdictional officer in the matter the Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal) and impugned order are pre-mature. 5.1 The appeal was filed by the respondents before the Commissioner (Appeal) against the endorsement made on the letter dated 30th July 2008 as follows: DF ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
