Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Surindra Engineering Company Vs. Cc (Preventive)

Surindra Engineering Company vs Cc (Preventive)

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Oct 31, 2006
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/43967

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Surindra Engineering Company

Respondent

Cc (Preventive)

Legal References

Reported In
(2006)(113)ECC521

Excerpt

.....the impugned order will have to be set aside and the matter remanded to the original authority for considering the matter afresh and taking a decision in accordance with law keeping in view the extension of export obligation period upto 19.10.2007. the authorized representative for the department also fairly submitted that in view of the extension of the export obligation period, the matter will have to be re-considered by the original authority.2. the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the machinery of the applicant is sealed in the factory premises and unless the applicant is allowed to operate, it might become difficult for the applicant to fulfill the export obligation. for this, he seeks appropriate direction on the concerned authorities. no such direction can be given at this stage. if the applicant wants to get any permission in respect of machinery, it will be open for the applicant to file an application at the earliest before the appropriate authority who will consider the same on merits and take a decision thereon in accordance with law without being prejudiced by any order made on similar earlier application.3. in the above view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby set-aside and the matter is remanded to the commissioner of customs (original authority) for fresh consideration in view of the communication dated 28.2.2006 issued by the office of joint director general of foreign trade extending the period for fulfillment of export obligation upto 19.10.2007 and take a decision in accordance with law, preferably within one month from the date of the receipt of this order. this appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

Full Judgment

1. When this appeal is called out, the learned Counsel for the appellant brought to our notice copy of letter dated 28.2.2006 addressed to the transporter of the appellant stating that the export obligation period was extended up to 19.10.2007 and consequently the export obligation value was enhanced to Rs. 8,82.93,997/- and US$ 20,67,775/-. This communication is entitled as the "licence amendment sheet". In view of this communication, according to the learned Counsel, the application will not be at default if it fulfills the export obligation as enhanced, upto 19.10.2007 being the extended period for fulfilling the export obligation. In view of the aforesaid development brought to our notice by filing an affidavit, the impugned order confirming the demand of customs duty on account of non-fulfilment of export obligation cannot be sustained at this stage and the impugned order will have to be set aside and the matter remanded to the original authority for considering the matter afresh and taking a decision in accordance with law keeping in view the extension of export obligation period upto 19.10.2007. The authorized representative for the department also fairly submitted that in view of the extension of the export obligation period, the matter will have to be re-considered by the original authority.

2. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the machinery of the applicant is sealed in the factory premises and unless the applicant is allowed to operate, it might become difficult for the applicant to fulfill the export obligation. For this, he seeks appropriate direction on the concerned authorities. No such direction can be given at this stage. If the applicant wants to get any permission in respect of machinery, it will be open for the applicant to file an application at the earliest before the appropriate authority who will consider the same on merits and take a decision thereon in accordance with law without being prejudiced by any order made on similar earlier application.

3. In the above view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby set-aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner of Customs (original authority) for fresh consideration in view of the communication dated 28.2.2006 issued by the Office of Joint Director General of Foreign Trade extending the period for fulfillment of export obligation upto 19.10.2007 and take a decision in accordance with law, preferably within one month from the date of the receipt of this order. This appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial