COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. TEG MASRADO LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the present ROM application, the Revenue who were respondents, in the appeal, has sought rectification in the impugned Final Order No. A/761/2001 -NB(D), dated 19 -9 -2001 [2002 (139) E.L.T. 117 (T)] vide which the order -in -original passed by the Commissioner dated 17 -4 -2001 against the respondents (appellants in the appeal) was set aside for want of requisite permission from the Development Commissioner in terms of Government's Circular No. 21/95 -Cus., dated 10 -3 -1995.

(2.) THE learned SDR has contended that the permission was already with the Department for initiating the recovery proceedings against the respondents. He has referred to a letter dated 13 -2 -2001 vide which the permission was allegedly granted to the Department. Therefore, the impugned order, according to the learned SDR, deserves to be rectified. On the other hand, the learned Counsel has contended that the letter dated 13 -2 -2001, referred to by the learned SDR, does not contain any permission of the Development Commissioner. This letter was sent by the Asstt. Development Commissioner for taking necessary action, if deemed fit. The learned Counsel has referred to the latest order dated 10th December, 2002 of the Development Commissioner vide which he has taken the view that there had been no breach of the export obligations by the respondents.

(3.) WE have heard both sides and gone through the record. The bare perusal of the impugned final order shows that the Tribunal after relying upon the judgment rendered in the case of Vishal Footwear Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi, 1999 (114) E.L.T. 60 (T) and the Government's Circular No. 21/95 -Cus., dated 10 -3 -1995, set aside the order -in -original for want of proper sanction from the Development Commissioner regarding the breach of the export obligations by the respondents (who were appellants in the appeal before the Tribunal).