1998 (8) TMI 229 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Availing of exemption under Notification No. 64/79 and Notification No. 20/93 for imports of chemical materials.
2. Failure to produce consumption certificate within the stipulated period leading to enforcement of bond.
3. Appeal against the enforcement orders challenging the requirement to pay the differential duty.
4. Consideration of evidence and circumstances leading to delayed submission of necessary extracts.
5. Discretion of the Asstt. Commissioner to grant extension of time for submission of account extracts.
6. Lack of hearing granted to the appellants before enforcement of bond.
7. Remand of the appeals to the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner for reevaluation.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellants availing of exemption under Notification No. 64/79 and Notification No. 20/93 for their imports of chemical materials, clearing them through Mumbai Customs House. The exemption required the importer to furnish an undertaking regarding the specific use of the imported goods for manufacturing bulk drugs as per the notification's conditions. However, the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner enforced the bond due to the appellants' failure to produce the consumption certificate within the stipulated period, leading to an appeal challenging the enforcement orders.

During the proceedings, the appellants argued compelling circumstances prevented timely submission of necessary extracts, including adverse marketing conditions affecting their goods. They had submitted a certificate of consumption endorsed by the Supdt. of Central Excise to the Customs House before the enforcement orders were issued. On the other hand, the department's representative contended that timely submission of evidence regarding material usage was crucial for maintaining the exemption bond.

The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions and noted that the Notification allowed the Asstt. Commissioner discretion to grant extensions for submitting the account extracts. Given the appellants' request for an extension and lack of a hearing before enforcement, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order. The appeals were remanded to the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner for a fresh determination of exemption eligibility after hearing the appellants, assessing the evidence provided, and verifying the delayed material utilization, in accordance with Notification Nos. 64/79 and 20/93.