TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 526X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal is admitted for hearing on merits. The rejection of certificate of origin is bad as it was a case of minor discrepancy and was fit to be ignored in terms of Rule 18 of the said rules. Further, the appellant had produced the rectified certificate of origin, which have been wrongly treated as issue of certificate retrospectively - the certificates of origin submitted by the appellant are in order. The appellant is held entitled to the benefit of exemption/ concessional tariff under Notification No. 096/2008-Cus. - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal No. 50919 of 2020-SM - FINAL ORDER No. 50759/2020 - Dated:- 7-9-2020 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri G. S. Arora, Advocate for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es 142 read with 141 of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned Authorised Representative relied upon the finding of the learned Commissioner on limitation. 5. Having considered the contention of the parties on the issue of limitation, I find that Commissioner (Appeals) have erred in dismissing the appeal on limitation, vide the impugned order dated 28.07.2020, which is in violation of the direction of the Hon ble Supreme court. Accordingly, the present appeal is admitted for hearing on merits. 6. On the issue of merits, learned Counsel states that the only objection of the Assistant Commissioner for denial of benefit of concessional tariff for exemption with respect to Bill of Entry No. 4943296 dated 18.09.2019, and 5508385 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... due to which the certificate has been issued retrospectively . Further observing that the revised country of origin certificate submitted by the appellant, is issued retrospectively. Hence, the goods imported by them are not eligible to the exemption benefit under Notification No.096/2008 dated 13.08.2008. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant urges that the learned Assistant Commissioner has misconstrued the provisions of law. If the facts of this case, it was not issue of COO retrospectively, as per facts on record the certificate of origin as required have been issued at the time of export of goods from the exporting country, and the same was presented for availing the exemption or concessional tariff along with the bill of entr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Cus. Tuticorin vs. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., -2015 (315) ELT 482 (Tri. Chennai). Learned Counsel further states that the goods are perishable in nature and are lying in the bonded warehouse for almost a year and are losing their quality and value, being an edible product. 10. Learned Authorised Representative appearing for the Revenue relies on the impugned order. He further prays that the matter may be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merit. 11. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the rejection of certificate of origin is bad as it was a case of minor discrepancy and was fit to be ignored in terms of Rule 18 of the said rules. Further, the appellant had produced the rectified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
