TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) for Appellant Shri Krishna Kumar, Advocate for respondent ORDER The appeal has been filed by Revenue. The respondent M/s. KDL Biotech Ltd. had imported-Alpha-P-Hydroxy Phenyl Glycine base valued at ₹ 43,57,497/- CIF under DEEC scheme and exempted from whole customs duty leviable under 1St Schedule to CTA, 1975 whole of additional duty, safeguard duty anti-dumping duty leviable under Section 3,8 9A of CTA, 1975 respectively (exemption Notification No. 51/2000-Cus dated 27.04.2000). The Appellants produced seven advance licence for clearance of the said goods. Subsequently it was noticed by the lower authority that some of the licence produced by the Appellant were advance licence f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icences e.g. (1) 310118232/8.1.2002; (2) 310116081/27.12.2001; (3) 310119704/16.1.2016, and (4) 310107031/22.10.2001, are for deemed exports, hence not eligible for benefit of Notfn.51/2000-Cus. The goods were cleared vide B/E No. IGM10968/22.2.2002, the show cause notice was issued on 20.06.2002. The Appellants have admitted their mistake in respect of these four licences and requested vide their letter dated 26.7.2002 (Exh.D), for substitution of these licenses with eight other licenses, e.g. (1) 310093787/19.07.01; (2) 310103360/25.09.01; (3) 310121646/28.01.02; (4) 310091788/27.07.01; (5) 310101173/11.09.01; (6) 310094978/27.07.01; (7) 310084618/16.05.01 and (8) 310112890/15.12.01, which are valid under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cuments in terms of Section 149 of Customs Valuation Act, 1962 when the other set was never presented to the assessing officer at the time of assessment. 2. Ld. AR argued that at the time of import the assessment was done and benefit of Notification No. 51/2000-Cus. was allowed though it would not available for a quantity of 5179.774kgs. After noticing the said mistake, the Revenue issued a notice to the respondent and only after realizing their mistake the respondent sought benefit of Section 149 of the Act. It was argued that under Section 149 of the Act, no amendment in Bill of Entry can be allowed after the imported goods have been cleared for home consumption, except on the basis of documentary evidence which was in existence at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n which element was not in existence at the time of request for amendment. Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the impugned order. Moreover, I also find that in respect of the same importer, the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order No. 46/2012, dated 15-3-2012 had allowed such amendment under similar circumstances. Under these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the authorities are directed to allow debit of SFIS scrip for the demand and accept the interest that may be payable by the importer . 4. We have considered rival submissions we find that it is not in dispute that the documents namely licences on the basis of which the benefit has been claimed existed prior to the assessment. In these circumstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
