TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 285
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... dated 19-5-1992 by submitting Release Advice issued by Mumbai Custom House against Value Based Advance Licence No. 0510233922 dated 5-1-2009 issued in lieu of the original licence No. 2270714 dated 9-1-1995 issued in the name of M/s. M.S. Shoes East Ltd. 2.1 On scrutiny of the licence, it was found that the same was originally issued to M/s. M.S. Shoes, New Delhi, the original copy has been reported lost and the present licence produced is a duplicate one issued by the DGFT in lieu of the original, made transferable by them on 18-12-2008 and revalidated upto 25-6-2009. It was also noticed that there is no endorsement on the licence regarding the condition of nexus between the imported material and material used in the manufacture....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etter dated 30-3-2009 asked the DGFT whether the clearance of the goods should be allowed without ascertaining the nexus between the goods imported and the export product? The DGFT replied the same on 2-4-2009 stating that the condition regarding nexus is applicable. 4.On the other hand, Shri Prakash Shah, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that there is a clear-cut endorsement on the Bill of Entry, which shows the decision taken by the Assistant Commissioner that - (a) licence as granted by the DGFT is not valid, and (b) the description does not tally with respect to the item in import i.e. polyester woven fabrics. That is the decision taken by the adjudicating authority and the same is appealable order before the Com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd their reply by the DGFT are not placed before this Tribunal for consideration and the same cannot be entertained in absence of any evidence before this Tribunal. 5.Heard both sides. 6. On careful examination of the case records and submissions made by both the sides, I find that the Revenue has filed this appeal on the following grounds : (i) The endorsement on the Bill of Entry was query raised to the respondents which is not an appealable order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to entertain the appeal on that endorsement which is in nature of query and not a final order. (ii) The licence in question is not a valid licence. The respondent had failed to provide the nexus between the goods imported and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xplanation has been sought from the importer with regard to the validity of licence or nexus. Hence, it is an appealable order. I do not find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has made any error in entertaining the appeal. The appeal on this ground is not maintainable. 10. The contention of the DR that "the licence granted by DGFT is not valid" is without any basis. In fact, the licence granted by the DGFT is in lieu of the old licence which is a valid licence. The sole ground of holding the licence is that the condition of nexus was not mentioned in the new licence, the same has been clarified by the DGFT through their letter dated 2-4-2009 on which the department is relying that the condition of nexus exists. The DGFT did not deny ....