9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duct under chapter heading 1208, whereas the said product should be classified under 2304, if the classification is under 1208, then 5% incentive on FOB, but if the classification as proposed by the Revenue, the incentive would be 2%. 1.1 On 20.10.2015 Investigation was conducted at the factory premises of the company. On 18.12.015 the statement of the Appellant was recorded. It was deposed that the Appellant was looking after all the works of the Company pertaining to DGFT and took care of all the work related to export incentives and duty drawback against the goods exported by the company. The Appellant could not respond to the query about the difference between edible grade and non-edible grade and the production of the goods in questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LT 496 (Bom.) * Titan Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd Vs. CC, New Delhi 2003 (151) ELT 254 (S.C.) * CC, Bombay Vs. Sneha Sales Corporation 2000 (121) ELT 577 (S.C.) * Supreme Casting Ltd Vs. Jt. DIR General of Foreign Trade, Ludhiana 2016 (342) ELT 176 (P & H) * CC Vs. Rajnarayan Jwalaprasad 2014 (306) ELT 592 (GUJ.) * Bindu S. Mehta Vs. CC, Rajkot 2000 (121) ELT 281 (Tri.) * Lakshmi Packaging (P) Ltd Vs. CCE & CUS, Coimbatore 1998 (98) ELT 91 (Trib.) * Patanjali Foods Limited (Formerly Known as Ruchi Soya Industries Limited) Vs. UOI Special Civil Application No. 11739 of 2023 * The commissioner of Customs Vs, Patanjali Foods Limited (Formerly Ruchi Soya Industries Limited) Tax Appeal No. 32 of 2019 * State of Punjab Vs. Bhatinda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owever, the DGFT also issued the license accepting the description declared by the appellant. In this case there is no mala fide intention, particularly on the part of the present appellant because the issue of classification of goods is a matter of interpretation and the same could have been detected and disputed while issuing the VKGUY license by DGFT. 4.1 Moreover, in the present case, so far the license has not been cancelled by the DGFT. On this ground alone the penal provision cannot be invoked against the appellant. 4.2 The judgments relied upon by the Revenue are on different facts and issue are not similar to the case in hand, therefore, those judgments are not applicable in the facts of the present case. 5. Accordingly, in my c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
