2006 (5) TMI 371

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-1973. The goods were cleared on payment of duty. However, the appellants claimed exemption in terms of ad hoc exemption order dated 26-7-1973. Consequently, an amount of Rs. 98,57,764.71 was refunded to them. But, the above amount was recovered in December, 1974 with the consent of the appellants on account of certain Audit objections. Later, the appellants claimed refund in April 1977 in respect of the recovered amount with reference to the ad hoc exemption order. The refund claim was rejected mainly on account of the fact that the goods were imported as Visakhapatnam instead of at Nagapattnam in terms of the ad hoc exemption order. The appellants approached the Commissioner (Appeals) against the OIO. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e. The substantial condition of Notification has been complied with and only due to operational reasons, the vessel was diverted to Visakhapatnam. In these circumstances, the denial of the benefit is not justified, especially, when the CEGAT has given a ruling that exemption is not in any way affected even if the importation of goods takes place at a port other than that mentioned in the order. 5. The learned JDR reiterated the orders of the lower authority. He further pointed out that when the appellants approached the Ministry for revising the exemption order, the Ministry has not acceded to it. For this, the learned Sr. Counsel said that the Ministry has not given anything in writing to the appellants' request for amending the no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ag and Calcutta; but the goods were imported at Bombay. The change in the arrival port would not make the shipment different. We do not also accept the contention that the Bill of Entry could refer to some other shipment. This Bill of Entry had been filed before the authorities concerned to a different shipment. Further, a scrutiny of the Bill of Entry as also the particulars mentioned in the ad hoc Exemption Order, proves beyond doubt that the Exemption Order related only to this consignment. We also do not feel that it is a fit case for remitting the matter for verification by the lower authorities, because we are convinced that the Exemption Certificate related only to the Bill of Entry 7273, dated 30-6-1973. The F.C.I. has produced a ce....