9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st the Advance Licences. 2.On investigations having been started against the appellants by the Customs Authorities, it was seen that the appellants had already entered into negotiations for sale of the imported goods to different parties. It was also seen that the appellants had availed the Modvat benefit on the goods exported against the Export Obligation of the above-mentioned Advance Licences, against which imports were made. However, during the investigations, the appellants reversed the Modvat Credit of Duty availed on the inputs used in the manufacture of the exported goods. As the authorities also entertained a view that the appellants have sold the imported items without first redeeming the LUT, the appellants approached the D.G.F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vance Licences under para 21 of the ITC Policy, subject to the conditions mentioned therein, the Customs Authorities were not justified in proposing to reject the benefit under Advance Licences. 5.The Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, however, was not satisfied with the appellants' contentions and by observing that the goods have been sold before being regularised by D.G.F.T., he remarked that the same cannot be considered as only a procedural lapse on their part. He also observed that the appellants had approached the D.G.F.T. for getting LUT redeemed only after the investigations were initiated by the Customs Authorities. The Modvat Credit was also reversed by the appellants, after the start of the investigations. He observed that the tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir Export Obligation and have realised the export proceeds and were entitled to the benefit of imports against the Advance Licences issued to them. In terms of the Notification under the Import Policy, the goods imported by them could also be sold subject to redemption of LUT. It is also on record that initially the appellants had availed the Modvat Credit, but reversed the same during the investigations. LUT was also got redeemed through D.G.F.T. who regularised the sale in terms of para 21 of the Import and Export Policy, 1992-97. As such, whatever procedural irregularities were committed by the appellants, the same were subsequently rectified by them. The reasoning of the adjudicating authority in denying the benefit of the Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and have regularised the sale of the imported Timber Log by relaxation of LUT redemption and once the sale is regularised, the adjudicating authority's denial of the benefit to the appellants is not legal. In fact, by denying the benefit of the Notification, in spite of the relaxation by D.G.F.T., amounts to challenging the D.G.F.T.'s Order vide which they have regularised the same. 12.In the case of Straw Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai-I reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 267 (Tribunal), it was observed that the adjudicating authority is bound by the detailed opinion of competent authority, DGFT and CCI E. Clarifications issued by them are treated as final and binding even on the Customs Authorities. Similarly, in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
