2010 (11) TMI 238

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ainst order dated 18.6.2004 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:-   "i) Whether the Tribunal's conclusion that on the very same issue of export obligation the Customs Authorities and DGFT are undertaking parallel proceedings and reaching opposite findings is not to be done/allowed, is correct in law in view of the fact that the two authorities act independent of each other in terms of statutory powers vested in them under two separate enactments, namely, under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992?   ii) Whether the conclusion of the Tribunal that customs ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ies and perused the record.   5. Learned counsel for the revenue submits that the Tribunal erred in holding that parallel proceedings by the Excise Department and the Foreign Trade Department could not be initiated. Scope of both the proceedings was different. The Foreign Trade Department was taking action in the capacity of licensing authority while the Excise Department was exercising jurisdiction to recover statutory dues and take action for default in that connection. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sheshank Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 1996 (88) ELT 626(SC) and judgment of this Court in Rajinder Arora v. Union of India, 2006 (206) ELT 1190 (P&H).   6. Learned counsel for th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the actual figure of export as found by the DGFT. Reference in this connection has been made to letter dated 24.10.2003 of Asstt. Development Commissioner, Noida and appellant's reply dated 19.12.2003.   5. On merits also, the appellant has contended that the findings are not sustainable on available facts. It is being pointed out that according to the Revenue itself, appellant's production was being clear to the three parties' who transported the buffalo meat to the export warehouse of Allana Investment and Trading Co. and thus, there is no evidence that the goods were being sold for domestic consumption. It is further pointed out that the appellant had produced shipping bills in support of its claim that the goods sold to the thr....