2009 (4) TMI 164

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the Dir. General of Foreign Trade, (DGFT) Mumbai. The said supplies were made in terms of the exemption Notification No. 28/2001. 2. The dispute in the present appeal lies within a narrow compass. One of the conditions of the Notification was the production of advance release order issued against the advance licenses by the licensing authorities i.e. Dir. General of Foreign Trade, Mumbai. Though there is no dispute that the advance licenses issued to M/s. Tuffware Industries to whom the supplies have been made, stands invalidated by DGFT, who had also issued a letter in favour of the assessee, the benefit stands denied on the sole ground that advance release order do not stand produced by the appellant. 3. As against the above, appell....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the same as invalidation letter already stands issued, is expecting the appellants to perform the impossible task. 4. After considering the submissions made by both the sides and after going through the impugned order, we find that the authority below have denied the benefits on the technical ground of non production of ARO. We have to see what is the ARO, DGFT has already clarified that the invalidation letters issued in favour of the assessee are nothing but ARO and separate ARO is not required to be issued. Tribunal in the case of Lipy Sipy Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. [2004 (171) E.L.T. 118 (Tri.-Del)] has observed in Para 5 that the status of advance release order is the same as advance license and therefore, supplies against advance rel....