TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 32/2002, dated 12-4-2002. The appellants had imported 10,800 kgs. of HDPL on the basis of transferable DEEC Licence in terms of para 7.27 of Handbook 1997-2002. Their claim was rejected on the ground that the advance licence had lapsed and they were not in force when the goods were cleared on the bond. Further, there is no dispute about the licence being valid when the Bill of Entry had been filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hipment and at the time when it was cleared from the bond. However, this is distinguished by the learned Counsel on the ground that even in terms of Notification No. 31/97-Cus., dated 1-4-1997 as amended, the materials imported should be covered by a DEEC Certificate issued by the licensing authority which is proper and the licence should have been valid at the time of shipment and at the time of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be covered by DEEC licence which follows that the licence is for the goods and not specifically for the importer alone. As the importer represents also any person claiming to be the one on his behalf, therefore, there is no merit in the submission made by the JCDR and the Commissioner, in his impugned order. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed following the ratio of the judgmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
