TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (4) TMI 131
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows:- (a) The appellant made exports of stainless steel products under DEEC Scheme and for the said purpose, they were granted DEEC licence permitting import of specified grades of steel sheets. There was a dispute about mis-match between exported product and the imported raw material. The Commissioner vide his order dated 3.11.97 held that the goods valued at Rs.6,74,43,408/- covered by 67 shipping bills were liable for confiscation and also denied benefit totally amounting to Rs.4,68,78,932/- under DEEC Scheme. He also denied benefit of duty drawback in respect of these consignments. (b) On appeal by the present appellant, Commissioner's order dated 3-11-97 wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mount payable as per the order dated 31-5-04 of the original authority and the order dated 23-2-2005 of the Commissioner (Appeals). He agrees that consignments covered by 67 shipping bills were not eligible for DEEC benefits. However, he submits that though they have claimed the benefit in respect of all these bills, they have actually availed the benefit only for some bills and have not availed the benefit in respect of rest of the shipping bills. The liability to pay duty will arise only in respect of bills in respect of which they have availed. Even in respect of certain bills they were accepting the liability to pay the duty, there have been clerical mistakes, some against them and some in favour of the Department and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... passing his order dated 3-11-97 based on show cause notice issued to them in which quantification of duty in respect of each of the 67 shipping bills has been indicated and the same have not been challenged by the appellant. He further submitted that the figures have also been examined and found to be correct by the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. We have carefully considered the submissions of both the sides. At the outset, we note that the Commissioner's order dated 3.11.97 stands upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We reproduce the relevant portion of the Commissioner's order dated 3.11.97 which is the subject matter of present dispute. "24. The party is denied the benefit totally amounting to Rs.4.68,78,932....