TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (3) TMI 533
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubsequently the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Mumbai) bearing (a) Advance Licence No. 2073306 dated 23-1-1995 and DEEC Book No. 147981 dated 23-1-1995, and (b) Advance Licence No. 2073442 dated 7-2-1995 and DEEC Book No. 156023 dated 15-2-1995, under the provisions of Chapter 7 of the EXIM Policy 1992-97. In accordance with these licences, the appellants imported Beta Napthol and Aniline Oil and clearance thereof was permitted duty free in terms of Notification No. 204/92-Cus., dated 19-5-1992. In the advance licence dated 23-1-1995, M/s. Amrut Dye Chem Industries were shown as supporting manufacturer and five other companies were shown as supporting manufacturers in the second licence. The imported Beta Naphtol was delivered by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeals) remanded the proceedings to the adjudicating authority, holding that the impugned order had been passed by the Deputy Commissioner without considering the submissions of the appellant. After remand the Deputy Commissioner passed fresh order dated 3-2-2006, once again rejecting the logging of the export for the same reason as in the earlier order. The lower appellate authority rejected the appeal of the appellants; hence this appeal. 3. We have heard both sides. The contention of the appellants is that they have fulfilled export obligation and they have not sold/diverted the material imported duty free. The alternate submission is that even if it is established that the duty free material import under the licence was sold in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed out of the imported raw materials were exported, although under the Passbook Scheme, and the period for fulfilment of export obligation was extended on payment by the appellants of a compensation fee of 5% of the FOB value as provided in Public Notice No. 38/97. 5. In the above circumstances, the Tribunal's orders in the case of Dolphin Drugs Pvt. Ltd. [2000 (115) E.L.T. 552 (T)] holding that as long as the export obligation was fulfilled within the time allowed to the licensee or within the period extended by the DGFT authorities, there is no violatior of condition of Notification No. 203/92 or 204/92 and the Tribunal's order in the case of Galaxy Surfactants Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs [2006 (202) E.L.T. 495] holding that it ....