TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (6) TMI 157
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne through the record. The ld, Counsel has contended that even if the export goods, which were declared as printed fabric made out of spun yarn at the time of export to Nepal under DEPB scheme, had not been found to be so, after the test by the Textile Testing Laboratory vide report dt. 23-12-03 and as such did not qualify for classification under S.No.46-A of Product Group Code 89 of DEPB Scheme, still the goods being printed fabric of non-spun yarn, were covered under S.No.47-A of Product Group Code 89 of DEPB Scheme and the appellants are entitled to the benefit of that scheme. He has also contended that the benefit of DEPB could be denied only by the DGFT authorities and not by the Customs Authorities. In our view, the contention raised....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant is that Commissioner has not complied with the directions given in the remand order and had not considered their claim under entry at S. No. 47-A of DEPB Schedule, therefore, order is not sustainable. The appellant also submitted after relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Avon Appliances v. CC, Mumbai reported in 2004 (172) E.L.T. 465 and upon the Board Circular dt. 3-6-97 that the Commissioner of Customs has no jurisdiction to decide the claim under DEPB scheme. The competent au thority has to decide the claim of the DGFT and the customs authorities simply has to forward the shipping bill under which the goods were exported with the remarks in respect of exported goods. 4. The Revenue also filed an appeal aga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sue necessary orders regarding the claim of the appellant at S. No. 47-A of the Schedule and this copy of the order has been forwarded to the DGFT. In these circumstances, we find no infirmity in the impugned order in this regard. 7. The appellant also submitted that in the earlier proceedings, the adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. one lakh whereas in the remand proceedings, the penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs has been imposed. The contention is that in the remand proceedings, the quantum of penalty cannot be enhanced. We find that as the adjudicating authority at first time imposed penalty of Rs. one lakh and Revenue has not filed the appeal against the impugned order hence the penalty is reduced to Rs. one lakh. In respect of the ....