9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... horization (DFIA) Scheme was rejected on the ground that the appellant exporter made the request for conversion after three months from the date of let Export Order in violation of period prescribed under Board Circular No 36/2010-Cus dated 23.09.2010, which reads as under : 3(a). 'the request for conversion is made by the exporter within three months from the date of the Let Export Order (LEO)' Therefore, the present appeal was filed. 2. Shri. Hardik Modh, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that now the appellant is seeking conversion of 184 DBK S/Bills as against request made to the commissioner for 204 DBK S/Bills. He submits that the Learned Commissioner rejected the request for conversion of Shipping Bills ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bai (Supra). He submits that due to prolonged litigation resulted in expiry of relevant DFIA Licenses. Therefore he prays for directions to issue certificate in terms of the provision of para 2.13.1 of handbook of procedure enabling the appellant to approach the regional licensing authorities for validating the DFIAs, as per the said provision. He submits that in the instant case the exports were made during the period 10.09.2013 to 31.03.2015, the said period is squarely covered in the case of parle products Pvt. Ltd (Supra).Therefore, on the ground of delay the request for conversion was illegally rejected. 3. On the other hand, Shri. S. K Shukla, Learned Superintendent (Authorized Representative) appearing on behalf of the revenue reite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as prescribed under Board Circular No. 36/2010-Cus. We find that since the time limit has not been prescribed under the act, the same cannot be fixed by way of the circular. Therefore, if at all there is a time limit by way of circular it is only procedural requirement. Therefore, on this ground of limitation, application could not have been rejected, particularly when circular prescribing time limit is without authority of any statutory provision, act and rules supported. 4.2 It is settled law that the time limit prescribed by the Board Circular is not binding as same is not statutory provision in terms of section 149 of the Customs Act 1962. We further find that in the identical case of Bectors Food Specialities Ltd (Supra) this Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
