9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 944X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g authority has denied the exemption on the ground that export obligation has not been fulfilled. Now the learned counsel has produced the Export Obligation (EODC Certificate) which, prima facie, shows that export obligation under advance authorization scheme has been complied with accordingly the sole ground for denying the exemption by the adjudicating authority does not exist. However, the adjudicating authority has not seen the EODC during the adjudication. Therefore, the matter needs to be reconsidered in light of EODC submitted by the appellant. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal by way of remand to the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order after taking into consideration that the export obligatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the adjudicating authority has not given any findings on any of the submissions made by the appellants thus, the impugned order is non-speaking order and is in violation of principles of natural justice thus, the same is liable to be set aside. He further submits that respective advance authorisation and the respective bonds were first registered in the custom system for the purpose of scrutiny. Only after due verification, the order for clearance of the subject goods for home consumption under Section 47 of Customs Act, 1962 was granted. It is submitted that Foreign Trade Policy para 4.14 and the exemption Notification 18/2015-Cus exempts Basic Customs Duty (BCD), Social Welfare Surcharge (S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fit of the exemption notification cannot be denied merely because of some procedural lapse. He placed reliance on the following judgments: CC-Chennai vs Compagnie General Des Eaus, 2005 (192) ELT 201 (Tri Chennai) CCEX, Rajkot vs Ellora Times Pvt. Ltd. 2008 (228) ELT 381 (Tri. Amd) Packaging India Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (294) ELT (Tri. Del.) ABB India Ltd. Vs UOI 2020 (373) ELT 205 (Ker.) It is his submission that mere clerical error cannot be the ground for violation of Section 17(1) of the Customs Act. Thus, the appellant is not liable to pay the penalty for the same. The reliance in this regard is placed on the case of CCE Rajkot vs Ellora Times P. Ltd. 2008 (228) ELT 381 (Tri. Amd.). 3. Shri Anand Kumar, learned Superintendent (Authorised Repre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
