2019 (8) TMI 498

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 02.06.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants holder of IEC No.1080001459 were issued Advance Authorization No.1010035409/25.09.2009 by the JDGFT, Cochi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....2017 confirmed the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 23,25,298/- along with applicable interest. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner who rejected the said appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the impugned order was passed only on account of non-submission of the EODC certificate. The said EODC certificate has now been produced before me by the appellant which certifies that the appellant has fulfilled the export obligation as required under the Advance Authorization dated 25.09.2009 issued by the JDGFT. In view of the EODC ....