9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e with the submissions of the petitioner, either by way of grounds or by way of oral submissions made during the hearing. Instead, it appears that the same conclusions that were recorded in paragraphs 16 and 19 of the original order were reproduced. Since the impugned appellate order was issued without dealing with contentions advanced by the petitioner, the impugned order calls for interference. Consequently, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded to the appellate authority for reconsideration. The appellate authority is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and, thereafter, issue a reasoned order after duly dealing with all contentions raised by the petitioner. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant authority did not take these contentions into account and instead reproduced paragraphs 16 and 19 of the order of the original authority. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order calls for interference. 4. Mr.G.Meganathan, learned standing counsel (Customs) for the respondents, referred to the counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents and contended that Circular No.53/2020-Customs-dated 08.12.2020 was issued subsequent to the bill of entry and that said circular cannot be applied retrospectively. Therefore, he submits that the rejection of the exemption claim does not contain any infirmity. 5. The impugned appellate order should be tested on the terms thereof and not with reference to the counter filed by the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in of Products under the Duty-Free Tariff preference scheme for Least Development Countries) Rules, 2015 of the DFTA of LDC Schemes, 2008 (vide Notification No.96/2008 dated 13.08.2008). Hence, I find that the appellant is not eligible for said notification benefit. 6. On examining the above extract, it is evident that the benefit of notification No.96/2008-Custom, dated 13.08.2008, was denied to the petitioner herein on the basis that there is no provision for third country invoicing in the relevant rules. While reaching this conclusion, the appellate authority did not engage with the submissions of the petitioner, either by way of grounds or by way of oral submissions made during the hearing. Instead, it appears that the same conclus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
