TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1072X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or export of the said goods was accorded to the appellant, is thus incorrect and therefore, the conclusion reached by the ld. Commissioner also becomes erroneous - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal No.356, 357 of 2009-SM - A/10915-10916/2017 - Dated:- 4-5-2017 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) Present Shri Anil Gidwani, Consultant for the appellants Present Shri A. Mishra, A.R. for the Respondent-Revenue Per: Dr. D.M. Misra Heard both sides. These appeals are filed against the Order-in-Original No.3/MP/DAMAN/2009 dated 30.6.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise Customs Service Tax Daman. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are 100% EOU eng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely, Meta Phenoxy Benzaldehyde was of Indian origin and not of Chinese origin. It is his contention that on the basis of their request and acceptance of the mistake in sending the goods to the appellant by the overseas supplier, the Commissioner of Customs, Customs Service Tax was pleased to allow re-export of the said goods. Ld. Consultant submits that the goods were exported against shipping Bill No.6045064 dated 18.2.2008 and the ship was sailed on 23.2.2008. He submits that even though this fact was specifically brought to the notice of the adjudicating authority in their reply to the show cause notice by enclosing all the export documents, however, erroneously, the ld. Commissioner recorded a finding on the basis of a letter dated 23 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aterial and on the request of the appellant, the ld. commissioner of Customs allowed export of the said goods which in fact was exported on 23.2.2008 against Shipping Bill No.6045064 dated 18.2.2008. The Revenue has confirmed the said export of the goods. The finding of the ld. Commissioner of Customs that no permission for export of the said goods was accorded to the appellant, is thus incorrect and therefore, the conclusion reached by the ld. Commissioner also becomes erroneous. 6. In the result, in view of the principle laid down in the judgments referred to by the ld. Advocate mentioned above, I do not find merit in the impugned order. Accordingly the same is set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
