TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (4) TMI 128
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Joint Chief Controller of Import and Export and Joint Director General of Foreign Trade. All these licenses were quantity based advance licenses issued under the Duty Exemption Scheme contained in Chapter XIX of the Import and Export Policy, 1993 and Chapter VII of the Import and Export Policy 1992-97 in respect of the export products (i) Flavoured Shivalik Mentha Base; (ii) Methyl Hydroxy; and (iii) Flavoured Aromatic Menthol Base. Under the Scheme, quantity based advance licences are issued by the Licensing Authority on the recommendation of a Regional Advance Licensing Committee who then scrutinizes the applications and decides the quantity and value of goods that can be imported against specified quantity and value of any export product. 3.A facility is given to the Importer either to first import and utilise the imported goods in the manufacture of the export product or to export the goods after the application for the licence is made. In the later case, the exports can be used in discharging the export obligation specified in the licence. After the export obligation is completed, export proceeds realised and LUT redeemed, the imported goods became freely transferable. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llenging the actions of the Customs Authorities in not clearing the said goods. The High Court directed that those 24 consignments be also cleared on the same terms i.e. on the appellant's furnishing P.D. Bond for the duty amount involved and Bank Guarantee of 50% instead of 25%. 8.In the notice issued, it was alleged that what was exported by appellant, the export being prior to the import of the exempted material, was shown on test to be Plain Menthe Oil and therefore the Natural Essential Oil and Aromatic Chemical were not part of the export product. It was also alleged that no manufacture of the export product had taken place at the premises of the Earnest and Co. at Indore. It recorded that the advance licence and DEEC certificates issued to the appellant had been cancelled. The notice proposed denial of the exemption contained in Notification 159/90, confiscation of the goods under clause (d) of Section 111 and penalties. 9.In the order in original, the Collector denied the benefit of Notification Nos. 159/90-Cus. and 204/92-Cus. for the reasons that it has not been shown that the condition in the notification that the imported goods were identical in terms of quality a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 159/90. Alternatively, it was contended that the appellant is also entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 204/92. It is now seen that the appellants have filed the bill of entry after this notification was issued by the Govt. on 19-5-1992. Therefore, it is a relevant notification which has to be considered. As per Clause 4 of Chapter 1 of EXIM Policy 1992-97, it is made clear that licences issued before the commencement of this Policy shall continue to be valid for the import/export of the items permitted thereunder. It is to be seen that whether this licence is a quantity based licence and the quantity based licence shall specify the names and descriptions of items to be imported and the quantity of each item to be imported and the c.i.f. value of imports. In the present licence, the quantity as well as the value descriptions are clearly mentioned and therefore it is a quantity based advance licence. This licence issued for the previous policy period will continue to be valid for the present period also in view of the transitional arrangements as contained in Para 4 of Chapter 1 of EXIM Policy 1992-97. This argument of the learned representative is therefore having forc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers significantly. The arguments of the departmental representative before the Madras Bench, recorded in paragraph 6 of its order, do not refer to any of these considerations. We are quite satisfied if these points had been urged, a very different result might have arisen. We are therefore unable with respect, to treat that decision as binding. For the reasons it will also be clear that it is not possible to extend the benefit of notification 204/92." 13.Instead of referring the matter to a larger Bench in order to maintain the judicial propriety in decision-making, the Tribunal took it upon itself to disagree with the aforesaid decision in Jayant R. Patel (supra) in refusing to follow the same. 14.This Court in the case of Jayaswals Neco Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur reported in 2006 (195) E.L.T. 142 (S.C.), in the similar circumstances, held that in order to maintain the judicial propriety in decision-making, the Tribunal wherever it differs with the decision of the co-ordinate Bench should refer the matter to a Larger Bench. It was observed : Assuming even if it were to disagree with the test laid down"9. in Hindustan Gas & Industries case (supra), in o....