TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 973
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 30.10.2013 and DGFT notification No 90 dated 21.8.014, it is mandatory to state the actual quantity of inputs used in the export product to avail DIFA benefit. By the impugned Order, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the decision of Assessing Officer and allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent. So, the Revenue filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The Learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal. He submits that DGFT Notification No 31 dtd 1.8.2013 permitted import only those items which are actually used in the export products . DGFT Notification No 90 dtd 21.8.2014 stipulates that of actual quantity of inputs used on the exported products, shall be allowed under DFIA. Admittedly, the exporter failed to produce any evidence in this regard. The exporter has not stated that Phosphoric acid was actually used in the export product in the shipping bills. The exporter failed to produce any evidence of actual quantity of phosphoric acid to be used for the manufacture of export products and the technical reference as placed by the respondent would not serve any purpose. It is submitted that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the exporter to intimate the actual quantity of phosphoric acid used in the export of goods, who did not provide the information to the department. As the exporter fulfilled export obligation, the licence were transferred to the respondent/importer as endorsed by the Licensing Authority. In such situation, in our view, the exporter cannot be compelled to furnish any information in respect of the said DFIA, which has already been transferred to the respondent. The Tribunal in the case of M/s Uni Colloids Impex Pvt Ltd (supra) after following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court rightly held that once the DIFA was transferred by the Licensing Authority, it is not necessary to establish by the importer that the use of imported material in the export product, which is, in fact, not in the hands of importer. 5. The findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) are as under : "However, the contentions of the appellant in this context appear to be valid especially in the light of Hon'ble Tribunal decision in the matter of Uni Colloide Impex Pvt Ltd Vs commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad. The Tribunal held that as per provision of Para 4.2.2. (b) DFIA is issued as per the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....censing scheme? The instant case relates to imports under license issued for actual user condition by the license to the license holder. It is no longer res integra and is a settled law that nexus between the imported materials and export product, is not required to be proved fresh by the transferee/licensee once imported material is otherwise covered by the advance license and the benefit of exemption notification would be available. In Commissioner v. Goodluck Industries - 2000 (120) E.L.T. A66 (Supreme Court), the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's judgment in Goodluck Industries v. Commissioner - 1999 (108) E.L.T. 818 (Tribunal) laying down the said ratio, and on merits dismissed the same appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta against the same. In Jayant R. Patel v. CC, Hyderabad - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 164, the Tribunal held that the duty free import entitlement are not to be proved again by the exporter or the transferee of license once advance license is granted and vide Commissioner v. Jayant R. Patel - 2003 (155) E.L.T. A68 (S.C.), the Revenues appeal against said judgment was dismissed. In CC, Chennai v. Salem Stainless Steel - 2001 (131) E.L.T. 30 (M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....settled by Apex Court. Moreover, Para 4.2.2(b) of Foreign Trade Policy stipulates that DFIA shall be issued in accordance with Policy and procedure in force on date of issue of Authorisation. We are therefore not impressed by the submission of the Revenue that the position as prevailing on the date of clearance would govern imports under valid licence. The appellant, who are transferee, cannot be compelled to establish that wheat gluten was actually used in the manufacture of the biscuits which have been exported against the DFIA. The provisions of Notification No. 31, dated 1-8-2013 (as amended) will not be applicable to such DFIA issued on 30-5-2012 i.e. issued prior to amendment. Consequentially any policy circular or public notice, if seeks to deny the exemption which is otherwise available in the instant imports, will also have no applicability for the same reason. In Commissioner v. Global Exim, 2010 (259) E.L.T. A139 (Bombay High Court), it was observed that - "4. According to the Revenue, a co-relation of technical characteristics, quality and specification is required to be established in respect of bearings sought to be imported that the bearings were actually used in t....