1999 (9) TMI 400 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Dispute over duty exemption of advance licenses under Customs Notification No. 203/92.
2. Transfer of licenses to another party and fulfillment of export obligations without importing goods.
3. Non-consideration of submissions by the original authority.
4. Delay in obtaining a certificate from the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise.
5. Allegation of suppression and invocation of extended period under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.
6. Lack of clarity on Modvat credit usage and manufacturing details of exported goods.
7. Appellants' status as merchant-exporters and legal transfer of licenses.
8. Need for a re-examination of the matter by the original authority.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The dispute revolves around the duty exemption of advance licenses under Customs Notification No. 203/92, with a focus on the non-availability of duty exemption due to Modvat credit utilization on imported goods.

2. The appellants transferred the licenses to another entity after fulfilling export obligations without importing any goods themselves, as permitted by the DGFT.

3. The original authority did not adequately consider the appellants' submission regarding non-importation of goods and the transfer of licenses, leading to a lack of clear findings in the order-in-original.

4. There was a delay in obtaining a certificate from the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, which was crucial for verifying the non-utilization of Modvat credit by supporting manufacturers.

5. The allegation of suppression and the invocation of the extended period under the Customs Act, 1962, were based on the assumption of Modvat credit utilization, which was disproved by subsequent evidence.

6. There were uncertainties regarding the Modvat credit usage and manufacturing details of the exported goods, raising questions about the applicability of duty exemptions.

7. The appellants were identified as merchant-exporters, and the goods exported were manufactured by supporting manufacturers not registered under Central Excise, as confirmed by a certificate from the ACCE.

8. Considering the lack of clarity in the original authority's decision and the subsequent availability of crucial evidence, the appellate tribunal ordered a remand for a de novo consideration by the original authority to address all the pertinent issues raised during the appeal.

This detailed analysis encapsulates the key points and intricacies of the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the tribunal's decision for each aspect of the case.