TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s by the appellants under the Advance Licence Scheme and duty free clearances of imported goods under Notification No. 203/92-Cus., dated 19-5-92. 3.Brief facts are : Appellants imported polypropylene under the Advance Licence Scheme and availed of duty free clearance of the goods claiming exemption under Notification No. 203/92. They had also taken Modvat credit on the inputs under Rule 56/57A of the Central Excise Rules. The Department alleged that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of duty free imports under the notification since condition (V)(a) of the notification provided that the export obligation should have been discharged by exporting the goods manufactured in India and in respect of which no credit at inputs stage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Scheme declared by the Ministry of Finance Circular No. 285/1/97-Cus., dated 10-1-97 provided that the importer should have reversed Modvat credit and paid interest there on before 31-1-97, if he was to escape duty liability and penalty. The Commissioner found that the appellants had failed to fulfil the conditions of the Amnesty Scheme on two Grounds. Firstly, there was a short fall in the amount required to be reversed and secondly, the interest payment had taken place on 7-2-97, i.e., on a date subsequent to the deadline provided in the Amnesty Scheme. He held that if an importer intends to take the benefit of the provisions of the Amnesty Scheme he should fulfil the requirements and conditions of the Scheme fully and on time. The requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that in the case of the appellants, no such endorsement as to transferability of the licence had been obtained nor had the appellants transferred the licence at any stage. There was therefore no question of any act of omission or commission on the part of the appellants by way of getting an endorsement for transfer of the licence attracting the provisions of Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 as alleged in the SCN. As regards availment of duty exemption in violation of condition (V)(a) of Notification No. 203/92, ld. Counsel submits that the appellants had availed of the benefit of the Exemption Notification under a bona fide belief that they were entitled to do so and when they realised their mistake, they had on their own re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the demand based on Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962 would not be applicable in the case of appellants since during the period of dispute, the said provision did not exist in the Statute Book. The same would apply also to the imposition of statutory penalty. 8.Appearing for the Respondent Commissioner, Shri M.P. Singh, ld. JDR, submits that mention of Bill of Entry No. 175/64 in the SCN and in the impugned older was a result of a clerical error and in this connection, he refers to Annexure 'C' at Page 23 of the Appeal Papers which shows that '175/64' as IGM No. and not as Bill of Entry No. Since there was no dispute about the actual quantity of Polypropylene imported by the appellants, the wrong mention of the Bill of Entry number ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry penalty, ld. JDR, reiterated the findings of the Commissioner in the impugned order. 10.Considered the submissions of both the sides and perused the record. 11.As regards the question of discrepancy relating to the correct mention of Bill of Entry Number in the Annexure to SCN/impugned order, we find from Page 23 of the Appeal Papers (Annexure 'C' reproducing Part 'D' of DEEC) that No. 175/64 relates to IGM. Ld. JDR has explained that the said number has been wrongly mentioned as the Bill of Entry number in the SCN/impugned order due to Clerical error. We are satisfied with the said explanation, since there is no dispute about the factum of import of the quantity of Polypropylene by the appellants which is the subject matter of the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Modvat credit in a particular manner and as per the formula specified in the Circular. In addition, interest at the rate of 20% on the amount of Modvat credit retained by the exporters for the period between the date of export and the date of reversal was also required to be calculated and deposited before 31-1-97. Even assuming that the appellants were covered by the Amnesty Scheme, their claim for the benefit of the Scheme cannot be allowed since, admittedly, all the conditions of the Scheme have not been complied with by them in the manner specified under the Scheme. We therefore find no merit in the plea of the appellants that the Amnesty Scheme dated 10-1-97 has been wrongly denied to them. 12.Since there is no dispute about th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
