2018 (11) TMI 156 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – 100% EOU – The appellant applied to the Development Commissioner for clearance of the goods up to the extent of value of ₹ 204.66 lakhs. It seems that the letter of permission granted by the Development Commissioner allowed the appellant to clear the goods to the extent of ₹ 240.66 lakhs – Held that:- The subsequent detection of mistake at the end of the Development Commissioner, on account of an audit objection raised, resulting in amendment of the certificate by him will have no bearing to the goods already cleared in terms of a proper, correct and legitimate certificate issued by the Development Commissioner issued initially. As such, it cannot be said that when the goods were cleared, the appellant was not having any valid certificate and the same were cleared against them against an invalid certificate – the said excess clearances stand adjusted against the clearances for the future period, in which case no loss to the Reve
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
of ₹ 240.66 lakhs. Though, the said fact was an apparent mistake on account of typographical error, the appellant in terms of the said permission granted by the Development Commissioner cleared their product to DTA in the year 2000 to the extent of ₹ 240.66 lakhs. The said goods were cleared on payment of duty applicable in terms of Notification No. 2/1995, which provided concessional rate of duty. 2. Subsequently, the said mistake was detected by audit and was brought to the notice of the Development Commissioner. Based upon the same, the Development Commissioner corrected the said typographical mistake, and amended the DTA sale entitlement certificate by replacing the amount of ₹ 240.66 lakhs to ₹ 204.66 lakhs. It is also seen that vide their letter dated 18th Sept. 2002, the Assistant Development Commissioner opined that the excess sale of ₹ 36 lakhs may be treated as advance DTA sale and be adjusted against future DTA sale entitlements. Ld. Advocate in
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
lopment Commissioner. Admittedly, in the present case such permission was obtained and was granted by the Development Commissioner allowing the appellant to clear the goods in DTA to the extent of ₹ 240.66 lakhs. The subsequent detection of mistake at the end of the Development Commissioner, on account of an audit objection raised, resulting in amendment of the certificate by him will have no bearing to the goods already cleared in terms of a proper, correct and legitimate certificate issued by the Development Commissioner issued initially. As such, it cannot be said that when the goods were cleared, the appellant was not having any valid certificate and the same were cleared against them against an invalid certificate. 5. Apart from above, we also find that the said excess clearances stand adjusted against the clearances for the future period, in which case no loss to the Revenue has occurred and as such no demand would be sustainable against the assessee. 6. We also note that t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =