2020 (4) TMI 839

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld order-in-original No. 147/2012/ADJ(X) dated 12.11.2012 of the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Export), Nhava Sheva. By the said order, the Additional Commissioner has held as follows:- "ORDER In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussion and finding mentioned above, I deny benefit of notification no.98/09-Cus. dated 11.09.2009 to the importer and order for assessment of Bill of Entry on merit." 2.1 Proceedings were initiated against the appellants vide show cause notice dated 25.10.2012. The show cause notice was issued asking the appellants to show cause as to why:- i. The duty exemption benefit claimed under the notification 98/2009-Cus. dated 11.09....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is order cannot be sustained. 3.3 Learned AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the order and submitted that the appeal should be dismissed. 4.1 We have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in the appeal and during the course of argument. 4.2 In the matter, we find that the appellants have in para E.6 of their submissions made before the adjudicating authority have stated as follows:- "E.6 In any case, the SCN has not given copies of these shipping bills or test reports. It merely gives the computer screen shot. The information provided along with the SCN is inadequate and the Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority may direct the department to provide copies of the shipping bills and the t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tioned or referred to in the SCN. Hence, on this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. A.3 For the first time in the order-in-original, the clarification dated 23.10.2012 has been referred to, without supplying a copy of the same to the appellant. In fact, even during the personal hearing, existence of such clarification was not disclosed to the appellant. A.4 As the copy of the clarification issued by the DGFT has not been furnished to the appellant, either along with the SCN or during the personal hearing or after passing of the order, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, as having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice." 4.5 We are in agreement with the submissions ma....