2017 (6) TMI 94

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pondent ORDER Per: B. Ravichadran The appeal is against the order dated 23.01.2015 of Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, New Delhi. The appellants had imported three consignments of raw materials under Advance Authorization dated 30.03.2007 claiming exemption under Notification 93/2004-Cus dated 10.09.2004, without payment of customs duty. The condition for exemption is that the importer shall ful....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....demand of the said amount and upheld the penalty imposed. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that they have paid an amount of Rs. 3.53 Lakhs on 16.03.2014 itself. DGFT initially, vide order dated 30.05.2011 directed the appellant to pay the customs duty on the unutilized imported material and the applicable interest. On payment of the amount by the appellant the DGFT vide order dated ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....produce the necessary EODC from the office of DGFT, within the stipulated time. Accordingly, he held that the conditions of Notification 93/2004 have been violated by the appellant. He quantified the customs duty payable by the appellant as Rs. 3.53 Lakhs. We note at the time of passing the order by the Commissioner (Appeals) the appellants were in possession of the order dated 30.05.2011 as well ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appellant. The whole case before the lower authorities is with reference to compliance of the conditions of license issued by DGFT for non-payment of customs duty. The customs duty has been paid in terms of direction given by the licensing authority and the same has been taken note of by the licensing authority to close the matter. In such situation, we find no further issue remains to be decided.....