Judgment :- 1. Since, the issues involved in both the writ petitions are similar in nature, they have been taken up together and a common order is being passed. 2. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 3. The writ petition, in W.P.No.13647 of 2012, has been filed challenging the order of the respondent, dated 25.4.2011, confirming the demand of duty of Rs.22,94,284/-, said to be payable by the importer, along with the applicable rate of interest, in terms of the notification No.44/2002, issued under the Customs Act, 1962. The said order had been passed, by the respondent, stating that the petitioner was liable to pay the duty, as per the order passed by the respondent, on 25.4.2011, since, he had not complied with the conditions of the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme. 4. It has been stated that, as per the said Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme, the petitioner ought to have fulfilled the obligations, by exporting the goods manufactured using the capital goods imported against the license for a value of US$ 5,10,000, before 6.8.2010. 5. It has also been stated that the Scheme further requires the licensee to obtain a redemption letter, from the licensing authority, for closure and cancellation of the bond furnished to the customs authority. However, it is the case of the petitioner that the export obligation period had been changed, from eight years to ten years, by an order passed by the Foreign Trade Development Officer concerned, on 4.2.2010. After such an extension had been granted, the petitioner had exported the goods, within the extended period, and had also obtained the redemption letter, from the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, dated 18.4.2012. Even though the said redemption letter, dated 18.4.2012, had been forwarded to the respondent, on 20.4.2011, he had passed the impugned order, dated 25.4.2011, without considering the said letter, issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents had submitted that the petitioner ought to have challenged the impugned order passed by the respondent, on 25.4.2011, before the Commissioner of Customs, who is the appropriate appellate authority. Instead, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by the respondent, on 25.4.2011. 7. Instead, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by the respondent, on 25.4.2011. 7. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, it is noted that the petitioner had obtained a letter, dated 4.2.2010, from the Foreign Trade Development Officer, extending the export obligations period, from eight years to ten years. The said letter had also been sent to the respondent. The respondent had received the said letter, on 20.4.2011. However, he had passed the impugned order, on 25.4.2011, without considering the same, properly. 8. Further, the petitioner was also furnished with the redemption letter, dated 18.4.2012, issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, stating that the petitioner had discharged the export obligations, as per the scheme. However, the petitioner had not forwarded the redemption letter to the respondent before he had passed the impugned order, on 25.4.2011. 9. It is also noted that the respondent had not disputed the fact that the extension letter, dated 4.2.2010, had been issued by the Foreign Trade Development Officer, extending the obligation period, from eight years to ten years. Thereafter, a redemption letter, dated 18.4.2012, had also been issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, stating that the petitioner had discharged the export obligations. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the respondent, dated 25.4.2011, as the petitioner need not be compelled to challenge the said order by filing a formal appeal, before the Commissioner of Customs, who is said to be appellate authority.