TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (4) TMI 410
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er No. A-681- 691 /KOL/02, dated 26-6-2002. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Respondents imported Low Silica Limestone (LSL) at Paradeep Port and filed bills of entry claiming full exemption under the Notification No. 79/95-C.E., dated 3 1-3-95. These bills were filed under DEEC Scheme. Against the Order passed by the Original Authority, the Party filed Appeals which were disposed by the Tribunal, vide Order dated 26-6-2002. The Original Authority in the earlier Orders held that the content of Calcium Oxide (CaO) was less than 53% which was the minimum requirement in terms of DEEC Licences granted to them. When the matter came before the Tribunal, the Appeal was disposed by remanding the matter to the Origi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ady been held in their favour by the Tribunal The Tribunal s Remand Order was limited to considering whether the other conditions of the licence issued under DEEC Scheme and the exemption Notification are satisfied or not, and the Commissioner has clearly held that the other conditions have been fulfilled. He also submits that the following decisions are in support of his contention that the Remand Proceedings have to be strictly in terms of the Remand Order and confined to the issues permitted by the Authority remanding the matter for de novo consideration :- (i) K.P. Dwivedi v. State of UP & Others - (2003) 12 Supreme Court Cases 572; (ii) Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. v Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 1986 (157) In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of such goods including chemical composition thereof as enjoined under the Handbook Procedure of Exim Policy, 1992-97. We do not find much force in this argument either. The import licence specifically prescribes for the contents of CaO of more than 53% in the imported low silica lime stone and any contents of CaO less than this, has to be considered as a violation of that condition of the licence. 7. Having recoided the above, we, however, find force in the contention of appellants that CaO content of above 53% in the imported material is not the only condition of the licence. The appellants have further made the fol lowing submissions with regard to their compliance with the conditions of the advance licence and the DEEC book :- 'The af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the export obligation under the said Advance Licences. This is the position in case of the subject Advance Licences involved in all the eleven cases involved herein. Thus, it is clearly evident that the subject LSL consignments conformed to the specification required in the manufacture of the subject export products and were of technical characteristics as required under the said Advance Licences/DEEC Book and, consequently, the said Notification.' 'The Commissioner failed to appreciate that in interpreting an exemption notification the wordings therein had to be construed keeping in view the purpose of the exemption. The main purpose for which the exemption is granted from customs duty on materials that are required to be imported for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... For want of specific findings of the original authority, however, on the other submissions of the party, we find ourselves handicapped to pronounce upon their duty liability, if any, on the supposed violation of the condition of exemption notification. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the case calls for going back to the original authority for reconsidering the matter and for passing a de novo order on the other submissions of the party. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner and remand the matter to him for de novo consideration and passing a fresh speaking order in the matter. The appellants shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of making further written submissions and oral representati....