TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akhs - Held that:- The subsequent detection of mistake at the end of the Development Commissioner, on account of an audit objection raised, resulting in amendment of the certificate by him will have no bearing to the goods already cleared in terms of a proper, correct and legitimate certificate issued by the Development Commissioner issued initially. As such, it cannot be said that when the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Per Mrs. Archana Wadhwa: After hearing both the sides, we find that the appellant is a 100% EOU and is authorised to sell their product in the DTA, after seeking the permission of Development Commissioner. The appellant applied to the Development Commissioner for clearance of the goods up to the extent of value of ₹ 204.66 lakhs. It seems that the letter of permission granted by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .66 lakhs to ₹ 204.66 lakhs. It is also seen that vide their letter dated 18th Sept. 2002, the Assistant Development Commissioner opined that the excess sale of ₹ 36 lakhs may be treated as advance DTA sale and be adjusted against future DTA sale entitlements. Ld. Advocate informs us that the said excess sale was so adjusted against the future sales made by them. Further, the Assistant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Law requires a 100% EOU to clear the goods to DTA after obtaining the permission of the Development Commissioner. Admittedly, in the present case such permission was obtained and was granted by the Development Commissioner allowing the appellant to clear the goods in DTA to the extent of ₹ 240.66 lakhs. The subsequent detection of mistake at the end of the Development Commissioner, on acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tificate was amended by the Development Commissioner in 2002. The question as to whether the extended period, which in the present case is even beyond five years would be available to the Revenue to demand the differential duty, stands answered by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs. NCC Blue Water Products Ltd. 2010 (258) ELT 161 (SC). As such, the demand raised after a period o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
