9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Just because the said authority who should have issued communication to the assessee-applicant chose to bias the mind of the adjudicating authority does not ipso facto become sacrosanct, much less, an admissible evidence. Had the assessee defaulted in not approaching the authority in time, then perhaps it was a different aspect altogether, which is not so here. When no primary evidence is available for various reasons, then there is no bar to consider other evidences like secondary evidences before concluding the proceedings, by the lower authority. The appellant should not be taken to task due to a delay caused in the DGFT office to act on their request for redemption of EPCG Licence. The impugned order calls for interference and is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... according to the Ld. Advocate, the certificate issued by their chartered accountant who has clearly certified that the assessee had fulfilled their export obligations, would serve the purpose. To buttress his contention that non-production of EODC as proof of fulfilment of Export Obligation cannot be held against them, he placed reliance on the following orders: - i. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi v. Multivac India Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (357) E.L.T. 1148 (Tri. Del.)] ii. Tex Corp Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [2017 (358) E.L.T. 971 (Tri. Del.)] iii. Prime Opthalmic Products P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [2017 (358) E.L.T. 814 (Tri. Del.)] 2.3 The Ld. Advocate further submitted that the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontain any documents said to have been submitted, rather the same appears to be meant for general correspondence only. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the order of lower authority, we have gone through the documents placed on record and we have also considered the orders of various benches of the Tribunal relied upon by the assessee during the course of arguments before us. 5. After hearing both sides, we find that the issue to be decided by us is: whether the Commissioner was correct in proceeding to confirm the demand? 6. At the outset, we are of the prima facie view that the impugned order cannot be sustained for the following reasons. 7.1 Firstly, when an application for discharge is submitted before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at bothers us. 7.3 The Commissioner has further observed that more than nine years had lapsed, but however, has not found fault with the assessee; as the record placed before us speaks that the assessee had claimed to have fulfilled export obligation, filed necessary application with documents with the concerned authority, namely, ADGFT. Admittedly, the ADGFT neither issued certificate nor has issued any communication highlighting the shortcomings, if any, to the appellant from the said application and hence, we do not have any doubts as regards the bona fides of the assessee/appellant before us. Just because the said authority who should have issued communication to the assessee-applicant chose to bias the mind of the adjudicating auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
