AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 178
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....whole dispute in the present case relates to the date of export of these goods. The respondent based on documents showing export on 21.09.2004 obtained DEPB Scrips from JDGFT, New Delhi having benefit of 10%. The Revenue contended that the date of export is 24.09.2004 with relevant applicable benefit of 5.5 % only. The respondent filed four shipping bills and claimed DEPB benefit of Rs. 18,97,007/-. 2. Based on certain verification of records and inquiry, the Revenue initiated proceedings against the respondent by issuing show cause notice dated 15.06.09. The case was adjudicated by order dated 26.02.2010. The Original Authority held that the goods were exported only on 24.09.2004 and as such, confirmed differential excess duty available a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of argument as well as in further written submissions, ld. AR reiterated that the copies of the bills of lading covering shipping bills clearly indicate the date as 24.09.2004. Copies of the shipping bills bear signature of Customs Officers dated 24.09.2004. The container stuffing sheet in respect of the goods covered by these shipping bills maintained by Haryana Warehousing Corporation at ICD, Rewari signed by the Port Manager and Inspector of Customs is dated 24.09.2004. The BRCs submitted by the respondent contains various corrections and re-writings and the export date wrongly mentioned as 21.09.2004. The DEPB register, shipping bill, register and export cargo register at ICD, Rewari show the date of shipment as 24.09.2004. Shri Manis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al, is that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot take a contrary view in the same case in two different orders. It is submitted that in the first round of litigation, the matter was decided ex parte. In remand directions, the Tribunal instructed the Original Authority to provide due opportunity to the respondent before deciding the case. As such, the decision in the impugned order cannot be questioned on the ground that this is contrary to the earlier finding. The earlier finding does not exist as the same has been set aside by the Tribunal. No other ground is mentioned by the Revenue in the appeal. However, later in written submissions, the Revenue made certain allegations with reference to the correctness of the date of export. It is the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e documents, which bear the signature of customs offices. Though during the course of argument and written submissions, the Revenue made various assertions regarding manipulation and correctness of the documents by the respondent, the only ground agitated in the appeal filed by the Revenue is that the Commissioner cannot arrive at a different finding when the very same authority passed an order in favour of the Revenue in the first round of litigation. We note that the ground relied on by the Revenue in this regard is legally not sustainable. It is clear that the proceedings in the first round of litigation concluded and merged in the final order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), rem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es SBs, I find that all the four SBs bear the seal-stamp by the department as "ICD Customs Rewari, S.Bill No. 0039 to 0042" and all the four stamps are dated 21 Sep, 2004. I also find that all the said four shipping bills were processed by Inspector and Superintendent of Customs under their signatures all dated 21.09.2004. There is nothing in the impugned order to show how these shipping bills were processed on 21.09.2004 when they all were alleged to be dated 24.09.2004 as held by the adjudicating authority. Further the appellant has also submitted the copy of letter issued by the Superintendent of Customs, ICD, Rewari, bearing C.No. VIII/ICD/Re/Misc/2/05/27 dated 14.03.2005 addressed to The Foreign Trade Development Officer, 6-7, Asif Ali....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble Supreme Court in the case of East India Commercial Co. Ltd. - 1983 (13) ELT 1342 (SC), Sampat Raj Dugar - 1992 (58) ELT 163 (SC) and Sneha Sales Corpn - 2000 (121) ELT 577 (SC). Since the respondent did not import any goods, there is no question of recovering any duty from them. The various judicial decisions followed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order were not contested or distinguished in the appeal by the Revenue. 10. One more important aspect is that when the respondent produced various documents bearing signature of customs officers dated 21.09.2004, it is necessary for the department to enquire as to how such documents were presented and in case of questioning their bonafideness, to conduct further inquiry with r....