2019 (4) TMI 336

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the ld Asst Commissioner DFIA, JNCH Nhava Sheva is set aside and the CVD payment endorsement on the said seven DFIASs are directed to be deleted within seven days to show exemption from payment of Additional Customs Duty on importation of goods under these seven DFIA's." 2.1 M/s Global Exim (Respondents) purchased seven transferable DFIA Licenses from M/s Parle Products Pvt Ltd for claiming exemption from payment of Customs duty against Imports there under. 2.2 At the time of verification of the exports made by M/s Parle Products Pvt Ltd, the original licensee, under DFIA licenses, it was noticed that the goods exported were manufactured by availing CENVAT facility. The licensing authority had while granting transferability specified th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appeal and decided the issue as per the order referred in para 1, supra. 2.7 Committee of Chief Commissioner on examination of the order did not find the order to be legal and proper and directed filing of the appeal before tribunal. Hence this appeal by revenue. 3.1 In their appeal revenue has assailed the order of Commissioner (Appeal) stating- i. As no order or decision was passed against the respondents under Customs Act, 1962 allowing the appeal against remark dated 01.08.2008 on the request letter dated 30.07.2008 is not justified. ii. The order of Commissioner (Appeal) is in total violation of principals of natural justice without having any stand of revenue on the issue before him for consideration in the appeal filed before hi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....AO -sd/31.07 Shiv Pratap Singh Asstt Commr /DFIA" 5.2 From the above it is quite evident that the said endorsement is not a decision in itself which could have been appealed before Commissioner (Appeal). Further from the endorsement it is also not evident that whether the same was ever communicated to the respondent. Such an endorsement by the appraising officer and Assistant Commissioner on any receipt cannot be considered as decision which could have been appealed against before the Commissioner (Appeal). Such an endorsement is nothing but part of internal discussions between the two. 5.3 Thus in our view Commissioner (Appeal) was clearly in error when he entertained the appeal against the endorsement made on the request letter o....