TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 746X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be taken away merely because there was a delay in issuing the letter of permission by the Development Commissioner. Such an interpretation would make a mockery of the provisions of EXIM policy and the benefits granted to the exporter under the said policy - during the interregnum, there was a permission available which was valid, based on the preceding year's export performance and the clearance made by the appellant was within this limits specified. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant did not have the requisite permission for sale in to DTA - Following decision of Global Wool Alliance Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (2) TMI 637 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/1125 to 1127 & 1432 to 1434/2009 - Final Order Nos. A/480 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants have obtained permission from the Development Commissioner for sale of cotton yarn and waste into DTA based on their export performances. As per the EXIM policy and the guidelines issued in this regard the appellants are entitled to sell 50% of the value of their exports during a financial year into DTA in the subsequent financial year. After verification of the export performance and the achievement of NFEP, the Development Commissioner grants permission. This permission is valid for a period of 3 years. However, the entitlement to the DTA sale accrues on the first day of the financial year though the permission may be granted after a gap due to procedural delays. In the present case, impugned duty demands have been confirmed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limitation could not have been invoked in the facts of the case. 3.2 Reliance is placed on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Global Wool Alliance Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (278) ELT 249 wherein a similar issue came up for consideration and it was held that the benefit of Notification 2/95 could not have been denied merely because of a gap in obtaining an authorization/permission for certain periods between two authorization/permissions from Development Commissioner and accordingly it was held that so long as the permission was obtained subsequently, the appellant would be entitled for the benefit of exception as the permission merely formalizes the entitlement. Accordingly it is prayed that the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t during the interregnum, there was a permission available which was valid, based on the preceding year's export performance and the clearance made by the appellant was within this limits specified. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant did not have the requisite permission for sale in to DTA. 6. In view of the above factual and legal analysis, we hold that the impugned orders are not sustainable in law. Accordingly, we set aside the same and allow the appeals. 7. Since we have held that the appellants are eligible for the relief on merits, we are not going into the issue of limitation which was also raised by the counsels for the appellants during the course of arguments. (Dictated in Court) - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
