Page 214 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

892 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

“The Committee noted that the applicant has imported goods within validi-
ty of Authorizations. Therefore, no further revalidation is required. Imports
made within permissible CIF value and within the validity of the Authori-
zation shall be regularized after final assessment by the Custom Authority.
Excess imports, if any, shall be regularized on payment of applicable duty
and interest.”
7. Moreover, we find that if there are delays in finalization of provi-
sional assessment and during this period the validity of an Authorization ex-
pires, it cannot have any impact on the benefits available under the said Authori-
zations. In the instant case it is seen that at the time of import the authorizations
were valid and had sufficient balance to take care of not only the declared value
but also the enhanced value.
8. Thus, we find merit in the appeal, the demand is therefore set aside
and appeal is allowed.
(Pronounced in the open Court on 16-12-2019)
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 892 (Tri. - Mumbai)

IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI
[COURT NO. I]
Justice Dilip Gupta, President
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), NHAVA SHEVA
Versus
SUN TEX
Misc. Order No. M/86145/2019, dated 13-12-2019 in Application No.
C/MISC/86269/2019 in Appeal No. C/853/2009
Appeal - Reference on difference of opinion - Third Member on Refer-
ence - Exact differences to be made by dissenting Members - Members who
expressed dissenting opinions are bound by the statute to state the point or
points of difference and make reference after making such a statement - An
omnibus order cannot take place of the statement on point or points of differ-
ence - Entire appeal cannot be referred - Matter referred to the Hon’ble Mem-
bers constituting the Division Bench to specifically formulate the point or
points of difference of opinion while placing the matter before the President
for nominating a third Member to decide the point or points of difference of
opinion - Section 129C(5) of Customs Act, 1962. [para 17]
Application disposed of
CASES CITED
Amod Stampings Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2013 (289) E.L.T. 421 (Guj.) — Referred ............. [Para 8]
Colourtex v. Union of India — 2006 (198) E.L.T. 169 (Guj.) — Relied on .................................. [Paras 8, 15]
Commissioner v. Jagat Texturising — 2010 (255) E.L.T. 353 (Guj.) — Referred .............................. [Para 8]
Jagat Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — 2016 (335) E.L.T. 406 (Bom.) — Relied on ............. [Paras 8, 14]
Writ Petition No. 14126 of 2019, decided on 22-1-2019 by Bombay High Court
— Relied on ............................................................................................................................... [Paras 3, 17]
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  214