9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the appellants are entitled to clear the goods to M/s. Tuffware Industries, without payment of duty. Invalidation letter issued by DGFT is nothing but advance release order only. M/s. Tuffware Industries have approached DGFT for issuance of such Advance Release Order (ARO), who was not willing to issue the same on the ground that invalidation of advance licenses would serve the purpose – held that - that there was difference of opinion between Ministry of Commerce and Ministry of Finance. DGFT is of the view that invalidation letter is as per the policy and no separate ARO is required to be issued – penalty set aside. - E/1772/2005 - A/742/2009-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 8-4-2009 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) and Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Membe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase order only. M/s. Tuffware Industries have approached DGFT for issuance of such Advance Release Order (ARO), who was not willing to issue the same on the ground that invalidation of advance licenses would serve the purpose. They have submitted that the authorities below have failed to appreciate the spirit of the import export policy and the procedure set out therein. They have drawn our attention to Para 4.1.1(b) and Para 4.1.11 of Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-2009, which provide that invalidation of advance license in favour of the intermediate supplier and such advance license holder has the option to use them against the release order, the supply can be made against the licensee from 100% EOU without conversion into ARO. They have subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the appellants to M/s. Tuffware who were the holders of advance licenses, which has since been invalidated by the DGFT, invalidation latter stands issued. There is no dispute about this fact. As such, the said invalidation letter being in essence is nothing but an advance release order, the benefit should not be denied to the appellant. 5. We also note that Commissioner (Appeals), while setting aside the penalty has observed as under :- "As regards penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 of the Act, I find that when the license holder appellants approached DGFT for ARO the licensing authority has informed the appellants that the issue of invalidation letter is as per the policy for time being inforce and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
