TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 842
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "A. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in passing the Impugned Order sg 6.cuapp14-21.doc without considering vital documents which were on record before it more particularly in the form of Order dated 13.11.2007 passed by the Board of Approval (Pg No. 181 of the appeal memorandum) and Order of EPCG Committee dated 27.10.2014 (Pg 190 No. of the appeal memorandum)? B. Whether the Tribunal was correct in passing the Impugned Order dated 24.10.2019 without dealing with the submissions made by the Appellant in the appeal memorandum, miscellaneous application for introduction of additional grounds as well as during the personal hearing? C. Whether the Tribunal was correct in passing the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the meeting of Board of Approval it was recorded that a lenient view should be taken in respect of levy of fine, interest and penalty. On 21st June 2013, the Appellant filed a representation before the Development Commissioner, requesting him to allow the goods imported under the EOU scheme to be cleared under the EPCG licences issued in 2005. On 19th September 2014, the Appellant was allowed to treat the imports made under the 100% EOU as imports under the EPCG scheme. On 27th October 2014, a communication was received from Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) inter alia stating that concessional rate of duty prevalent on the date of import may be charged without interest (as a special case) by treating the import as imports made in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant is that with respect to the order confirming the interest under Sections 28AA and 28AB of the Customs Act is concerned, the Tribunal has not considered the submissions made by the Appellant and has also not examined the relevant facts of the present Appellant and the documents on record and given findings. The Tribunal has merely reproduced the Order-in-Original and has further reproduced the extracts from the decision in the case of Valecha Engineering Ltd. (supra), without examining the applicability of this decision to the facts of the Appellant. The Appellant also relied upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore vs. Srikumar Agencies 2008 (232) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.). and Commissioner of Central Excise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed hereinabove. The Tribunal was required to examine the facts and documents so as to form an opinion as to whether in the facts of the Appellant's case, the decision of Valecha Engineering Ltd. (supra) was at all attracted. The Tribunal in passing the impugned order has merely reproduced the Order-in- Original and various paragraphs of Valecha Engineering, without examining its applicability to the facts of the Appellant and assigning any reasons thereof. The Tribunal in para 3.2 of the impugned order has reproduced the submissions of the Appellant with respect to levy of interest to the effect that the Appellant had contended that levy of interest is against the doctrine of promissory estoppel and further that the interest in alternative ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... levied only on cash demand confirmed amounting to Rs.10.94 crores and not on the duty paid under EPCG licences. In our view, the Tribunal ought to have accorded reasons after examining the facts of the Appellant before deciding the issue of interest. The Appellant is justified in relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case Srikumar Agencies (supra) and, more particularly, paragraph 6 of the said decision, which is reproduced hereinbelow: "6. Since the factual position has not been analysed in detail, disposal of appeals by mere reference to decisions, was not the proper way to deal with the appeals. The CEGAT also does not appear to have dealt with the relevance and applicability of ITC's case (supra) on which s....