TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 114
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Babu, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Heard both sides. The appellants are before the Tribunal in the second-round after the jurisdictional Commissioner has heard them and has passed a detailed speaking order. 2. The miscellaneous application for early hearing filed by the appellants is allowed and the appeal itself is taken up for hearing today itself with the consent of both s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not accrue to them but to M/s. Infocus Marketing and Service Ltd., who are not the appellants. 4. The jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs has rejected the request of the appellants to make the post facto amendments to the shipping bill to allow insertion of name and EPCG licence number of M/s. Infocus Marketing and Service Ltd., who were nowhere in the picture at the time of exports mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6. There is another export promotion scheme, namely, Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme under which two things can happen :- (i) A manufacturer may obtain EPCG authorisation for duty-free imports of capital goods for manufacturing export goods. Against such imports, he is required to meet export obligation to the specified extent either making direct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation of M/s. Infocus Marketing and Service Ltd. 8. Under the scheme in force to obtain such a result, M/s. Infocus Marketing and Service Ltd., should have made the exports as exporters indicating the goods to have been manufactured by the appellants. However, this has not been done. No exports have been made by M/s. Infocus Marketing Service Ltd., in this case. On the contrary, the export....