TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plain reading of section 149, the only requirement for amendment is that the document related to the amendment should be available on record at the relevant time. In the present case on the date of filing of bill of entry the Advance licence was very much in possession of the Appellant, therefore the criteria for amending the Bill of Entry u/s 149 stands fulfilled. The contention of the lower authority is that the proposal for option of clearances under Advance licence was made after 15 days, therefore the same is afterthought. This contention of Revenue cannot be accepted for the reason that it is at that time when the department has raised the demand of Anti Dumping Duty, the Appellant proposed to clear the goods under Advance licence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has been rejected by the Joint Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad. The Appellant filed appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals) against the said letter. The Appellate Commissioner vide his Order-in-appeal no. AHD/CUS/000/EPP/112/16/17 dated 22.03.2017 remanded the matter to the lower authority on the ground that the principles of natural justice were not observed. The Adjudicating Authority in de-Novo adjudication disallowed the amendment request of the Appellant under section 149 of the Act and did not allow clearance of their imported goods under Advance licence. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the de-Novo Order-in-Original and rejected the appeal. Hence the presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is above contentions he submits that in this case it is revenue neutral exercise as if the Appellant pays all the duties including ADD, all the duties are refundable to Appellant by way of drawback brand rate fixation as these imported goods are meant for consumption in the manufacture of exported goods. Therefore there is no revenue loss to the department. 3. Shri S. Kinker, Learned Superintendent (Authorized Representative) appearing on behalf of revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He places reliance on the following judgments:- TATA TELESERVICES (M) LTD-2019 (12) TMI 70-CESTAT MUMBAI ASHOK LEYLAND LTD-2004 (173) ELT 518 (Tri-Chennai) 4. Heard both the sides and perused the records. We find that as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 149 stands fulfilled. The contention of the lower authority is that the proposal for option of clearances under Advance licence was made after 15 days, therefore the same is afterthought. We do not accept this contention of the revenue for the reason that it is at that time when the department has raised the demand of Anti Dumping Duty, the Appellant proposed to clear the goods under Advance licence, therefore firstly there is no delay in making request for amendment. Secondly no time limit has been prescribed under section 149 for such amendment. The judgment relied upon by the Appellant directly supports their case. As regard judgments relied upon by the revenue, the same are on different facts, hence the ratio of the same is not applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
