9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c Notice dated 21.08.1998 - HELD THAT:- Commissioner has proceeded on the basis that Section 149 provides for amendment only on the basis of documentary evidence contemporaneous with the fatum of export. Noting that there was no contemporaneous evidence, the request of the respondent was rejected. As against the same, an appeal was filed before the CESTAT which, in our view, rightly held that the rejection of the petitioner's request was incorrect. The CESTAT notes that the Public Notice had been issued in public interest and with retrospective application. Public Notice makes it clear that exports during the period 14.4.1997 - 14.4.1998 would be covered by the benefit under that Notice. The denial of the petitioner's request is thu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of shipping bills. 3. The petitioner had exported hydrogenerated caster oil / 12 hydroxy stearic acid, under various consignments during the period 1.4.1997 - 14.4.1998. Admittedly, at the relevant point in time, the exports were not covered under the DEPB Scheme. 4. While this is so, the Director General of Foreign Trade had issued Public Notice bearing No. 31(RE-98)/1907-2002 on 21.08.1998 invoking the powers conferred under paragraph 4.11 of the Exim Policy 1997 - 2022 vide S.O.No. 283(E) dated 31.03.1997. In terms of that Public Notice, the benefits under the DEPB Scheme were extended to various commodities as notified in Annexure A thereto. 5. Specifically, the extension of benefit was retrospective, with effect from 01.04.1997 unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be covered by the benefit under that Notice. The denial of the petitioner's request is thus contrary to the very object of the Public Notice, both in letter and spirit and the order of the CESTAT is thus upheld. 11. That apart, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court seeking a mandamus for disposal of its representation seeking conversion of benefits and by order dated 16.03.2009, the representation had come to be disposed adverse to the petitioner. An appeal had been filed before the Tribunal on 22.06.2010, and the matter stood remanded to the file of the jurisdictional Commissioner, with the following observations:- 2. The Commissioner has rejected the request of the exporters for conversion of Free Shipping Bills into DEPB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .4.97 to 14.4.98 were covered under Public Notice dated 21.08.1998. 13. No appeal has been filed by the Customs Department challenging order dated 22.06.2010 and having acceded to the directions issued, a different view cannot be canvassed now. 14. The substantial questions of law that have been admitted by this Court on 01.04.2013 are extracted below:- 1. When Section 149 of the Customs Act is self-contained in so far as the procedure regarding the document is concerned, whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the stand taken by the Department is too hyper technical? 2.That the Department has acted in consonance with Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 and when admittedly there is on statutory violation, whether strict compliance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
