Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2023 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 791 - CESTAT BANGALOREEPCG Scheme - fulfillment of export obligation partly - evasion of customs duty - denial of benefit of Notification No. 160/1992-Cus dated 20.04.1992 - Scope of the order passed in remand back proceedings - HELD THAT:- There is no provision in the notification for giving any such benefit. Notification 160/92 dated 20.04.92 stipulates that the importer undertaking an export obligation equivalent to 4 times the CIF value of the capital goods over a period of five years shall import the goods at concessional rate of 15%". The Tribunal in Ajawat Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Customs, Bangalore [2006 (6) TMI 448 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] on appeal against this order had clearly observed that "the extent of export obligation fulfilled should be taken into consideration towards the duty liability in view of the amendment to the notification No.160/92 dated 20.04.92 with retrospective effect by section 115 of the Finance act read with entry No.2 of the eighth schedule". When the respondents filed an appeal against this order of the Tribunal, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that "if the revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the revenue has to file an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court since the dispute is in relation to the rate of duty leviable on the assessee in view of two different notifications". The Tribunal in its final order had categorically observed that there is no justification for holding the goods liable for confiscation as there was no willful non-compliance of the notification, the order of confiscation by the Commissioner is not justifiable when the remand order was purely for re-quantification of demand of duty. Therefore, confiscation of the goods along with the redemption fine set aside. Further regarding interest and penalty, this Tribunal had taken a clear view and held that there is no provision for interest at that relevant time and set aside the demand for interest. The adjudication authority ought to have followed the findings given by this Tribunal by quantifying the extent of duty without ordering confiscation of goods, imposing interest and penalty. Hence the Adjudication Authority violated the terms of the remand order. Regarding non-consideration of the extent of export obligation, once the Tribunal has given a finding that the appellant complied with the export obligation, Adjudication authority ought to have quantified the duty liability of 40% against goods imported under License No. 3031914 dated 04.07.1994 as the appellant fulfilled export obligation to the extent of 60% and quantify the duty liability of 85% against goods imported under license No. 2183783 dated 04.01.1994 as the appellant completed export obligation of 15%. The appeal is allowed so far it exceeds the re-quantification of duty liability with consequential relief if any as per law. Confiscation and redemption fine along with interest and penalty also set aside.
|