TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 226
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in view of the Corrigendum No.PN.9/2002 dated 29.11.2002 to the Notification No.43/2002-Cus., as clarified by CBEC vide Circular dated 22.01.2007, the assessee cannot be said to have violated Condition No.5 of the Notification and was therefore, entitled to the exemption on the Customs Duty on import of raw sugar which was manufactured after refining into white sugar by the assessee and was finally exported through the third party, viz., Merchant Exporter. The relevant portion of the order of the learned Tribunal in this regard is quoted below for reference:- ''.... 4 Heard both sides and have gone through the facts of the case. We find merit in the assertion of the Ld.Senior Advocate. We find that CBEC vide its....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rule 18. This was a conscious decision because, as explained above, the earlier Notifications issued under Advance Licence Scheme [e.g. Notification No.203/92- Cus., dated 19.05.1992 etc.] had contained the same provision all along. 4 After issue of this Corrigendum the DGCEI sought a clarification about its validity on the ground that in the subsequent Notification No.93/2004-Cus., issued under Advance Licence Scheme, the advance licence holder was debarred from availing the rebate facility under Rule 18 under which, as mentioned above, an exporter could avail of the rebate of excise duty paid on the materials used in the manufacture of export products as also the terminal excise duty paid on the export products. Subsequently, af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on as he is deemed to have availed the rebate on the final product, viz., white sugar, at the hands of the third party, viz., Merchant Exporter. 3 On the other hand, Mr.Venkataraman, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr.Muthu Venkataraman, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee supported the impugned order and submitted that the Board itself realised in a series of Corrigendums and Clarifications issued, to ameliorate condition No.[v] in the Notification No.93/2004-Cus. dated 10.09.2004, vide Corrigendum dated 17.05.2005, and has later on, explained by the Circular dated 22.01.2007 and submitted that the Advance License for import of raw sugar in question was issued after the date of Corrigendum dated 17.05.2005 issued by the Board....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... We wondered whether the appeal filed by the appellant/Revenue in the face of these Clarifications issued by the Board, itself could at all be entertained or not. But, since the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue urged the point on the basis of Foreign Trade Policy, we heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue on merits also. But, we find to our dismay that such a point has not even been raised by the appellant/Revenue before the Tribunal or at any point of time except before us for the first time. That point too, on its own, does not advance the case of the appellant/Revenue as Paragraph 4.1.3 of the Foreign Trade Policy relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue applies to Advance Author....