2015 (4) TMI 598

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h Court, set aside the CESTAT Final Order No.978/04, dated 04.11.2004 and it was remitted to the Tribunal. The relevant portion of the High Court's decision is as under:- "28. The CESTAT proceeded on the premise that only the Director-General of Foreign Trade has authority to decide the issue regarding misuse of advance licences. While quashing the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, CESTAT ignored the basic fact that the proceedings in question was initiated only under the provisions of the Customs Act and more particularly under Section 111(o) of the Act. The Customs authorities have nothing to do with the order passed by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade. Entitlement of duty exemption is a matter to be decided b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... DRI officers made a thorough investigation and found that the appellant has no manufacturing facilities for that part of the period. Show-cause notice was issued. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 73,38,846/- along with interest and penalty of equal amount denying the benefit of exemption notification. The Tribunal by earlier Final Order set aside the impugned order, mainly on the ground that the Licensing authority has certified full discharge of export obligation. 3. The learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that during the relevant period, due to some unavoidable circumstances, the goods were manufactured through the job worker, which is permissible under the Policy. He submits that they als....