2019 (3) TMI 716

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sif Ali, Advocate, K.L. Lakshmi Rani For the Appellant Mrs. Kavitha Podwal, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG Appellants have filed these four appeals against different impugned orders all dated 29.8.2016 whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeals of the appellant and upheld the Orders-in-Original. Since the issue involved in all the four appeals is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rs. 4,90,185/-. Since the appellant failed to produce evidence of fulfillment of export obligation, the Original Authority vide Order No.62/2015 dated 21.12.2015 confirmed a short levy of duty amounting to Rs. 4,14,274/- (even though total duty saved amount as per the license is Rs. 4,90,185/-, there is an unutilized duty portion of Rs. 75,911/-) along with applicable interest in respect of the go....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ucts. He further submitted that the appellant could not fulfill the export obligation for the reasons beyond their control such as non-receipt of funds in time from the Ministry of Food Processing Industries. It is his further submission that in such a situation the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel comes into operation and the respondent is restrained from taking punitive action against the default....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....discharge the export obligation but they have failed to comply with the conditions of the Notification as a result of which both the authorities have confirmed the demand and short-levy amounting to Rs. 4,14,274/- along with applicable interest. Further, I find that the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case because the appellant have admitted....