9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 839X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by way of remand. - Customs Appeal No. 86926 of 2013 - A/87431/2019 - Dated:- 22-10-2019 - HON BLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HON BLE MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri T. Viswanathan, Advocate, for the Appellant Ms. Trupti Chavan, Assistant Commissioner, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER: SANJIV SRIVASTAVA This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal No. 87(Gr.VII-I)/2013(JNCH)/EXP-06 dated 31.01.2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II, JNCH, Nhava Sheva. By the said impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld order-in-original No. 147/2012/ADJ(X) dated 12.11.2012 of the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Export), Nhava Sheva. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) as per the impugned order and hence this appeal. 3.1 We have heard Shri T. Viswanathan, Advocate, for the appellants and Ms. Trupti Chavan, Assistant Commissioner (Authorised Representative) for the Revenue. 3.2 Arguing for the appellants, learned counsel referred to various pages of the appellate order and the appeal memorandum to claim that the relied upon documents along with show cause notice were not given to them and hence the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence this order cannot be sustained. 3.3 Learned AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the order and submitted that the appeal should be dismissed. 4.1 We ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal before us, the appellants have challenged the order grossly on this account in para A.1 to A.4. The same has been stated by the learned counsel for the appellants during the course of argument, which is as follows:- A.1 Para 33 of the order dated 12.11.12 relies upon clarification dated 23.10.2012 issued by the licensing authority to the effect that the imported fabrics are not relevant fabrics, covered by the DFIA. A.2 This clarification has not been relied upon in the SCN dated 25.10.2012. Hence, the order has relied upon a document not mentioned or referred to in the SCN. Hence, on this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. A.3 For the first time in the order-in-original, the clarification dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
