9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Denial of benefit of Notification No. 203/92-Cus. due to violation of Condition (v)(a). 2. Challenge of the order on merits and limitation. 3. Demand issued beyond the maximum limitation period of five years. 4. Lack of evidence regarding availing Modvat credit. Analysis: 1. The judgment addresses the issue of denying the benefit of Notification No. 203/92-Cus. to the appellant due to the violation of Condition (v)(a). The adjudicating authority confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 34,66,786/- against the appellant for availing input stage Modvat credit in goods exported under DEEC Licence. The authority invoked a longer period of limitation citing misdeclaration and suppression of facts by the appellant. However, the Tribunal found that there was no evidence to show that the appellant had availed Modvat credit, leading to the demand being deemed unsustainable on merits. 2. The appellant challenged the order on merits and limitation, arguing that the demand was beyond the maximum limitation period of five years. Citing previous decisions, the appellant contended that there was no finding of Modvat credit availed and that the demand was time-barred. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, setting aside the demand solely based on the issue of limitation exceeding the statutory period. 3. The judgment delves into the aspect of the demand being issued beyond the statutory limitation period of five years. The bill of Entry was filed in 1993, and the Show Cause Notice for duty was issued in 1998, well beyond the prescribed timeframe. Referring to Section 28 of the Customs Act, the Tribunal emphasized that even in cases of suppression of facts, the demand must be raised within the stipulated five-year period. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on this issue, invalidating the demand solely due to exceeding the limitation period. 4. Another crucial aspect addressed in the judgment is the lack of evidence regarding the appellant's availing of Modvat credit. Citing precedents, the Tribunal highlighted that the demand was unsustainable on merits as there was no proof of the appellant utilizing Modvat credit. By applying the principles established in previous cases, the Tribunal concluded that the demand could not be upheld based on the absence of evidence supporting the claim of Modvat credit availed by the appellant. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, providing consequential relief due to the unsustainable nature of the demand on both the grounds of limitation and lack of evidence regarding the availing of Modvat credit.
|
