TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1080
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... M/s Dodsal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (earlier known as M/s Dodsal Pvt. Ltd.) was awarded a contract by Indian Petro Chemical Ltd. (IPCL) for laying 35 Km long Semi Rich Lean Gas Pipelines between Gas Authority of India Ltd. Complex at Gandhar and IPCL's Complex at Gandhar. The Ministry of Chemical and Fertilizers, Department of Chemical and Petroleum, Govt. of India vide its letter dated 28.11.1997 has certified the goods listed in the enclosed Annexure-I are necessary and essential for implementation of the pipeline project. Thus, the appellant was entitled to import the goods specified in Project Implementation Scheme on concessional rate of duty. Accordingly, the importer applied for registration of their contract under Project Import, 1986....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne by the Kandla Custom House by allowing export in its letter dated 18.8.1999. First Order-in-Original was rejected by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court by ex parte order. 2.3 As regards Bill of Entry No. F-12073 dated 27.5.1999, it was observed that the goods have been assessed on merit and the importer have filed Bill of Entry in Gr. IV and the goods have been classified under Chapter 73.09.29 charging the duty. 2.4 As regards the Bill of Entry No. F-12073 dated 27.5.1999 filed in Mumbai Custom House at the relevant time, as per Ministry of Chemical & Fertilizers direction, the goods should have been assessed under the subsequent Chapter 98.01 for the specific goods under the Project Import Scheme was wanting at the relevant time, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellants have also alleged that there was violation of principles of natural justice as no show cause notice was issued nor any personal hearing was granted. It is evident from the impugned order that neither any show-cause notice not any personal hearing was granted. The impugned order is, therefore, in violation of principles of natural justice. In view of above facts, it would be in the fitness of things that the matter is re-examined in light of the letter from the Ministry of Industries. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order. However, the appropriate authority is directed to re-examine the matter in the light of above dire3ctions and pass a speaking order on merits within 3 months from the receipt of this order after affo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n and uncalled for remarks that without recording any finding to the contrary as facts on record. Further, it is urged that the appellate order is to be set aside. 4.1 The appellant also wants to add that the issue of less charge memo dated 7.2.2005 under section 48 is also time barred as the refund was sanctioned and disbursed vide order dated 6.5.2004 and even if the date of reimbursement is taken the less charge memo has been issued after more than six months and the same is clearly time barred in terms of Circular dated 22.9.1999. 5. The learned AR appearing for the Revenue states that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly set aside the impugned order by observing that C.A. Certificate is not a conclusive document for sanctioning....