9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing no. A/56364-56365/2017 dated 01.09.2017. On merits, the appeal of Revenue has been allowed the matter has been remanded only for the limited purpose of adjudicating certain other issues, including particularly the question of limitations. It's also impressed upon that infact there is no other issue as has been raised by the Appellant in the grounds of appeal. Since the demand against him stands already confirmed and since there is no notice for any appeal to have been filled by the assessee against the Hon'ble High court possibility of Appellant to no more be interested in pursuing the present appeal can not be ruled out. In view of the submissions, the order of Hon'ble High court is perused and the appeal in hand is disposed of in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Did the Customs Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter 'CESTAT') fall into error in its interpretation of Notification No. 40/2006-Cus dated 01.05.2006, and also with respect to para 4.55.3 of the Handbook of Procedure for Export and Import; (ii) Did the CESTAT err in law in its appreciation of specifications that the exporter had to provide and the declaration required, in terms of the above Notification No. 40/2006-Cus read with para 4.55.3 of the Handbook of Procedure for Export and Import) in the circumstances of the case?" The same have been decided in affirmative i.e. in favour of Revenue and against the assessee. The matter has been remanded for certain other issues, including particularly the question of limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... censing authority while availing facility of transferable DFIA; that by doing so the said DFIAs were obtained by suppression of facts and utilized for the purpose for which they were not used. When this order was challenged before the Hon'ble High court in para-6 of the order by high court, the commissioner's view that DFI licences were obtained by suppression and distortion of facts has been observed with no contrary finding to the said observations. From the record, I found no other reason to differ from the said observations of suppression and distortion of facts and the act being a consciously done act of the exporter. Hence, I am of the view that department has committed no error by invoking the extended period of limitation. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
