2014 (3) TMI 927

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ogether and a common order is passed. 2. As soon as the appeal was taken up, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the matter has to be placed before Division Bench in view of the fact that the issue involved is exemption notification. He draws my attention to Col. 17 of Form CA-3 wherein the appellant had indicated that the dispute concerns failure to achieve pro-rata export obligation prescribed in Notification No.44/2002-Customs dated 19.4.2002 and submit the EODC. According to the learned counsel, once the EODC is filed by the appellant, the assessment has to be made afresh and rate of duty has also to be determined. 3. The learned AR on the other hand would submit that the matter falls within the jurisdiction of Sing....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ended by the department and the issue in consideration is only whether the assessee is eligible for the concessional rate of duty which was the result of assessment or not. Therefore it cannot be said that this is a case where rate of duty is to be determined by interpreting a notification or tariff heading or any other matter. Similarly, the value of the goods is also determined and it is nobody's case that here the assessing authority would be revising the value or would be considering concessional rate of duty, etc. Under these circumstances, I do not consider that this is a case where the Single Member has no jurisdiction. 5. As already observed above, in this case the duty demand has been confirmed on the ground that the average exp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3 lakhs and directed the Commissioner (A) to hear the appeal. In that case also, the Tribunal had taken note of the fact that appellant had suffered a loss of more than Rs.37 crores. He submits that under these circumstances, the appellant should be required to make pre-deposit at least in the same ratio as in the past case which was about 17% of the total amount demanded by the Revenue. According to him this would come to around Rs.10.5 lakhs. 7. I find in the case considered by the Tribunal earlier, there was no letter issued by Ministry of Commerce to the appellant for approaching the DGFT and one arm of the Government having advised the appellant to approach DGFT, it would be appropriate to at least wait for a decision by that author....