9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant : Shri G.G. Bhat Prasad, Consultant For the Respondent : Shri Gopal Kumar, Jt. Commissioner(AR) ORDER PER : S.S GARG The appellants have filed these three appeals against the common impugned order dt. 11/10/2013 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has rejected the appeals of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Originals. Since the issue involved in all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icable rate by enforcement of DEEC bond and in one case, the Assistant Commissioner also confiscated the goods and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 125(1) of the Customs Act along with a penalty of Rs. 5000/- under Section 112(a) of the Act. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner(Appeals) who rejected the same. 3. Heard both sid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... export of goods and realization of foreign exchange and not the production of EODC. He further submitted that it is settled law that if exports and realization can be proved with other corroborative evidences, then also such benefit cannot be denied. In this regard, he relied upon the decision in the case of Prima Opthalmic Products P. Ltd. Vs. CC, New Delhi [2017(358) ELT 814 (Tri. Del.)]. He fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not followed the conditions as prescribed in Notification No.43/2002. Further I find that the submission of EODC issued by JDFT is only a procedural condition and if the appellant can prove by way of other corroborative evidences the factum of export and foreign exchange realization, then the benefit of notification cannot be denied to them. since in the present case, the only prayer of the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
