9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 842X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the impugned order has merely reproduced the Order-in- Original and various paragraphs of Valecha Engineering, without examining its applicability to the facts of the Appellant and assigning any reasons thereof. The Tribunal has reproduced the submissions of the Appellant with respect to levy of interest to the effect that the Appellant had contended that levy of interest is against the doctrine of promissory estoppel and further that the interest in alternative can be only in respect of the duty required to be paid by them in cash and not on the component of duty allowed to be debited by them from the EPCG licences. The Tribunal ought to have examined the effect of the communication received from DGFT dated 27th October 2014, on the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Approval (Pg No. 181 of the appeal memorandum) and Order of EPCG Committee dated 27.10.2014 (Pg 190 No. of the appeal memorandum)? B. Whether the Tribunal was correct in passing the Impugned Order dated 24.10.2019 without dealing with the submissions made by the Appellant in the appeal memorandum, miscellaneous application for introduction of additional grounds as well as during the personal hearing? C. Whether the Tribunal was correct in passing the Impugned Order dated 24.10.2019 by reproducing the extracts of certain decisions and not discussing the applicability of the same to the facts of the Appellant s, an act being completely contrary to law laid by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE V. Srikumar Agencies repo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the EOU scheme to be cleared under the EPCG licences issued in 2005. On 19th September 2014, the Appellant was allowed to treat the imports made under the 100% EOU as imports under the EPCG scheme. On 27th October 2014, a communication was received from Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) inter alia stating that concessional rate of duty prevalent on the date of import may be charged without interest (as a special case) by treating the import as imports made in EPCG Scheme. On 6th April 2015, an Order-in-Original was passed by the Respondent, upholding the demand and levying interest under Section 28AB and 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962. On 16th July 2015, the Respondent informed the Appellant that interest was recoverable on whol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the documents on record and given findings. The Tribunal has merely reproduced the Order-in-Original and has further reproduced the extracts from the decision in the case of Valecha Engineering Ltd. (supra), without examining the applicability of this decision to the facts of the Appellant. The Appellant also relied upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore vs. Srikumar Agencies 2008 (232) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.). and Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I vs. Technocraft Industries (I) Ltd. 2015 (40) STR 637 (Bom)., and contended that the order of the Tribunal do not furnish adequate reasons and, therefore, the proceedings are required to be reconsidered on an order of remand passed by this Court on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order has merely reproduced the Order-in- Original and various paragraphs of Valecha Engineering, without examining its applicability to the facts of the Appellant and assigning any reasons thereof. The Tribunal in para 3.2 of the impugned order has reproduced the submissions of the Appellant with respect to levy of interest to the effect that the Appellant had contended that levy of interest is against the doctrine of promissory estoppel and further that the interest in alternative can be only in respect of the duty required to be paid by them in cash and not on the component of duty allowed to be debited by them from the EPCG licences. The impugned order also records that the Appellant also contended that the Appellant had acted bonaf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant is justified in relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case Srikumar Agencies (supra) and, more particularly, paragraph 6 of the said decision, which is reproduced hereinbelow: 6. Since the factual position has not been analysed in detail, disposal of appeals by mere reference to decisions, was not the proper way to deal with the appeals. The CEGAT also does not appear to have dealt with the relevance and applicability of ITC's case (supra) on which strong reliance has been placed by learned Solicitor General. The CEGAT ought to have examined the cases individually and the articles involved. By clubbing all the cases together and without analyzing the special features of each case disposing of the appeals in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
