TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the learned counsel Mr.Pramod Kumar Chopda that the order is only an order of remand and therefore the department participated in the de-novo adjudication cannot be sustained and we are not inclined to accept the other said submission on account of candid and pointed observations made by the tribunal as to the manner in which the adjudication order was required to be done de-novo. Thus, the order passed by the tribunal dated 16.01.2002 was not an order of remand simplicitor but order with pointed observations and directions explicitly with regard to the stock of raw materials and finished goods in the factory premises. The entire issue revolves around facts, which has been considered by the adjudicating authority and the tribunal conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Whether substantive legislation (viz., Circulars) can over ride the provisions of the Act and Notification issued there under. 3. Whether an importer enjoying the benefit of an exemption notification is bound to satisfy / comply with the conditions stipulated in the said notification for availing such exemption or not? 4. Whether Clause VI of the Notification No. 203/92-Cus dated 19.05.1992 under which the 1st respondent / importer got exemption from payment of duty of the raw materials imported, is mandatory or not, especially when the said clause makes it clear that exempt materials shall not be disposed of or utilized in any manner except for utilization in the discharge of export obligations? 5. Whether the Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act and why penalty should not be imposed under Section 114A of the Act. 3. The assessee submitted their reply and the Commissioner of Customs awarded order in original dated 27.04.2001, confirming the proposal of the show cause notice. The assessee filed an appeal before the tribunal, contending that they have satisfied the condition of license by exporting in excess of the limit set in the advance license issued by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Hyderabad under DEEC scheme. They further contended that the conditions in the notification has been misinterpreted by the adjudicating authority. Various other contentions and legal submissions were made before the tribunal vide order dated 16.01.2002, allowed the appeal filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able and contrary to the findings recorded in the panchanama dated 11.06.1998. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this court to the various answers given by the assessee to the questions posed by the investigation officers as well as the stock position as recorded in the panchanama and submitted that the sale of finished products manufactured from the imported goods locally was admitted by the Managing Director of the assessee and this issue was not considered by the tribunal while passing the order dated 16.01.2002, nor the impugned order. 7. In our considered view, the revenue cannot raise the contentions questioning the order passed by the CESTAT dated 16.01.2002, which has attained finality. Since the revenue did not challeng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
