9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellants are registered as 100% EOIJ engaged in the manufacturing of instrument and apparatus for measuring or detecting ionizing radiations. They were not able to use some of the raw materials and components procured duty free and which became obsolete / redundant and wanted to destroy the said items in terms of provisions of para 6.15(b) of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-09. The appellants approached the jurisdictional officer on 18/1 1/2008 after expiry of initial warehousing period as the said raw materials were imported during the period 2004-05. The jurisdictional Range Officer vide letter dt. 09/04/2009 informed that the Assistant Commissioner has denied permission for destroying the unutilized raw material and thereby directed the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se notice to the appellant and hence suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. In support of this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: - i Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Dy. CCE, Gauhati [2015(320) ELT 3(SC)] ii. CC(lmport), Mumbai vs. Goodwill Sales Pvt. Ltd. [2016(343) ELT 1193 (Tri. Mum.)] iii. CCE, Indore vs. GRD Profile Steels (P) Ltd. [2009(247) ELT 821 (Tri. Del.)] 4.2. He further submitted that the lower authorities have totally ignored the fact that on the date of application for destruction of the goods, the Customs licence granted to the appellant had been renewed and that the goods are still in the bonded warehouse. It is his further submission that the payment of duty will arise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of material on record, I find that it is not in dispute that the appellant has fulfilled the ex ort obligation during the relevant period and have achieved the positive Net Foreign Exchange. Further I find that as per para 6.15(b) of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009, the appellants are entitled to destroy the raw material, spares, waste and scrap within unit after intimation to the Customs authorities or destroy outside unit with permission of Customs authorities. In the present case, the permission to destroy the obsolete material and components was sought from the jurisdictional Range Officer and vide letter dt. 09/04/2009, the jurisdictional Range office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot sustainable in law and the matter needs to be remanded to the original authority to consider the claim of refund in the light of the fact that the appellant has achieved positive NFE during the period and the Customs licence of the appellant has been renewed on the date of application for destruction of the goods and further that no order of Asst. Commissioner was communicated to the appellant denying the permission for destruction of the goods and further the original authority will also consider the FTP 2004-2009 which provides in para 6.15(b) that the appellant can destroy the obsolete mater under intimation to the Department. In view of this discussion, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is remanded to the original author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
