Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2009 (1) TMI 249

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mestone and filed Bill of Entry for clearance of 29,708/- MT under Advance Licence dated 24-12-1994. The said licence did not contain quantity/value limits in respect of the impugned items. The bill of entry was provisionally assessed under the DEEC scheme and clearance was allowed within overall CIF value of the licence. Later the CIF value of the licence was enhanced and the licensing authority specified against each of the permitted list of items, the quantity and value restrictions. The quantity of limestone was restricted (in the revised list) to 31,248 MT. The appellant had already cleared 53,738 MT of limestone against the said licence under Bills of Entry dated 24-2-1993 and 10-5-1993 but stayed within the overall CIF limit. Conside....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant's case not only the shipment of import was made but also the goods were received and consumed before the amendment was made. (iii) The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bhilwara Spinners Ltd. v. CC - 2008 (223) E.L.T. 172 (Tri.-LB) has held that the licensing authorities do not have powers to amend any licence retrospectively. Moreover in the following case, it has been held that the licence would be in terms of the policy as it stood on the date of licence and any subsequent amendment would not affect the terms of the licence already granted. * Monica Electronics v. CC, New Delhi - 2001 (136) E.L.T. 258 (Tri.) * Sonia Fisheries v. UOI - 1997 (90) E.L.T. 22 (Bom.) * Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI - 1992 (61) E.L.T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The EXIM Policy distinguishes limestone and low silica lime stone. (viii) Under the Input-Output norms for Non-Alloy/Alloy/Stainless Steel Bars and Rods, one of the major inputs is low silica limestone (Sl. No. 389). In contrast to the above, for Pig Iron (Blast Furnace route) the input item is limestone (Sl. No. 390). (ix) Thus, the policy identifies limestone and low silica limestone as different commodities, therefore, the list of sensitive items covers only limestone and not low silica limestone. (x) If the item was sensitive, the licensing authority would not have ordered for closure of the licence or would have imposed penalty under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. (xi) In the year 1993, there was....