9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1068X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch according to the Petitioner is inter parte binding. There is no discussion as to why the said order should not be taken into consideration or if taken into consideration what is the implication thereof. In the light of the fact that there was a pre-existing order of the Commissioner (Appeals) inter parte regarding the same product, where different classification and impugned order has been arrived at and which supports the claim of the Petitioner, the same should have been considered and the Petitioner is right in contending that failure to do so has caused serious prejudice to the Petitioner - the proceedings need to be remanded to the Appellate Authority for considering the effect and implication of the order in Appeal dated 31 Dece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment in respect of the goods exported as per shipping bills above seeking information regarding product literature of the items/proof of voltage of the items etc. The Petitioner wrote to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs on 24 February 2009 as regards queries raised against drawback claim of shipping bills. The Petitioner gave information regarding circuit breakers as to what is the primary function and stated that the circuit breakers manufactured and exported by the Petitioner falls under S.S.No. 85.37. 4. The Petitioner received a communication from the Commissioner of Customs export under the subject Query/Deficiency noted against drawback claim and it was stated that the circuit breakers/switchgears did not fall under the entr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder heading 85.35 of the drawback schedule and they will have to be classified accordingly. The Revisional Authority by order dated 13 June 2012 dismissed the revision and confirmed the order in Appeal and the order in original. Challenging this order, the Petitioner is before us. 6. We have heard Mr. Sriram Sridharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly, learned Senior Advocate for the Respondent. 7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has drawn our attention to the submission made before the Revisional Authorities. The Petitioner had raised contentions as regards the power of the Authority to question of classification of the goods under shipping bills having assessed and passing Let Export Order . S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cepted by the Petitioner. Accordingly the Petitioner has modified the price structure of the product after this order. This order been placed on record in the present proceedings and reference of the same can be found in the ground of Appeal which have been reproduced in the Appellate order, and is also referred to in the Revsional Application. 11. Having gone through the three orders passed, we find that the grievance of the Petitioner that the order in Appeal dated 31 December 1997 has not been considered at all is justified. Though this order is noted in the impugned order there is no discussion as to what is the implication of the said order, which according to the Petitioner is inter parte binding. There is no discussion as to why t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
