Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2013 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 120 - AT - CustomsDPEB Benefit - Assesse imported knitting and embroidery machines under 4 EPCG licences - Held that - Corroborative statements of the third party would show that the applicants name was not mentioned in the shipping bill and therefore there was no substance in their contention that non-supply of shipping bill would effect demand of duty - There was no mention of applicants name in the 12 shipping bills which were supplied to them - In this perspective, the contention that demand cannot be sustained for non-supply of the shipping bills would be considered after going through the case records in detail. - The applicants failed to make out a prima facie case for waiver of predeposit - Partial Stay Granted.
Issues:
- Application for waiver of predeposit of duty and penalty - Non-mention of applicant's name in shipping bills - Compliance with Commissioner (Appeals) direction - Prima facie case for waiver of predeposit Analysis: The judgment pertains to an application for waiver of predeposit of duty and penalty. Applicant No.1 filed the application seeking waiver of duty of Rs.29,99,322/- along with interest and penalty, while Applicant No.2, a partner of Applicant No.1, sought waiver of predeposit of penalty amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-. The dispute arose from the importation of knitting and embroidery machines under 4 EPCG licenses, where the machines were used by a third party for knitting embroidery goods. The demand was raised due to the absence of the applicant's name as the manufacturer in the shipping bills, leading to the denial of DEPB benefit. The applicant contended that quadruplicate copies of shipping bills did mention their name, but only 12 shipping bills provided for inspection did not include their name. The Revenue argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) had directed the applicants to make a pre-deposit of the entire duty amount for the appeal hearing, which was not complied with, resulting in the rejection of the appeal for non-compliance with the stay order. The Revenue further contended that corroborative statements from the third party indicated the absence of the applicant's name in the shipping bills, undermining the applicant's argument that the non-supply of shipping bills affected the duty demand. The tribunal observed that the 12 shipping bills supplied did not mention the applicant's name, leading to the conclusion that the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case for the waiver of the entire predeposit amount of duty, interest, and penalty. Consequently, the tribunal directed Applicant No.1 to deposit a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- within 8 weeks. Upon compliance with this directive, the predeposit of the remaining duty amount, interest, and penalty for Applicant No.1, as well as the penalty for Applicant No.2, would be waived, with recovery stayed during the pendency of the respective appeals. The parties were given the liberty to mention on the date of compliance for the hearing of the appeals, with compliance to be reported on 20.11.2013. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court by the tribunal.
|