Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2012 (3) TMI 272

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... has been sold under the Fertilizer Control Order, it has to be assumed that the urea was for use as manure and the exemption has to be allowed, in view of the affidavit filed by the appellants - Held that :- the customs duty exemption states that the same is not linked to the import condition of actual use as the relevant customs notifications provided for no conditions hence, order to waiver of predeposit of the duty and interest amounts during the pendency of the appeal - the appellants have definitely violated the conditions of import license hence the appellants need to predeposit Rs.5,00,000/- towards penalty within four weeks from the date of order and report compliance . - C/PD/200/2007, C/324/2007 - 66/2012 - Dated:- 31-1-2012 - .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e states that this condition was imposed only at the behest of the Ministry of Fertilizer and the sale of the urea imported has been done in accordance with statutory control orders and the violation of import licensing condition should not be viewed seriously. 3. As regards the customs duty exemption, he states that the same is not linked to the import condition of actual use as the relevant customs notifications provided for no conditions. He, therefore, prays for total waiver of the predeposit of the customs duty demanded along with interest thereon. 4. Ms. Indira Sisupal, learned DR appearing for the Department supports the impugned order and states that there has been absolute mis-declaration on the part of the appellants, they imp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of fertilizer and under the agreement, the registered dealer undertakes to comply with the rules, regulations and the procedures of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the fertilizer Control Order, 1985, the Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order, 1973 etc. as urea and complex fertilizers were controlled commodities. Further, the dealer also had agreed not to use the products for any other purpose, not covered under the agreement. (d) We would further declare that no quantity of imported urea was sold for any other purpose other than for use as manure for agricultural purpose." 6. We find that there are two separate issues involved in this case. The first issue is the duty demand and consequent demand of interest on the duty. The sec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er manufacture and therefore they should be disallowed the exemption. Apparently, the exemption was allowed because the appellants were taking the imported urea for further manufacture of another fertilizer. Instead, the appellants have sold the urea, as per their affidavit, to authorized dealers under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and Fertilizer Control Order. They are not the actual users of the urea as manufacturers as they are not farmers themselves. When the expression used in the notification is "for use as manure" and the urea has been sold under the Fertilizer Control Order, it has to be assumed that the urea was for use as manure and the exemption has to be allowed, Specially, in view of the affidavit filed by the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r customs duty exemption notification. Hence, we order waiver of predeposit of the duty and interest amounts during the pendency of the appeal. 9. As regards the penalty imposed, the appellants have definitely violated the conditions of import licence which stipulated that the imported urea should be used for further manufacture of NPK Fertilizer in the appellants-factory. Even though the condition was inserted by the DGFT, as claimed by the learned counsel, at the instance of the nodal ministry under which the appellant-PSU unit functions, in the eyes of the law, the said condition becomes a statutory liability for the appellants to observe. The violation of the same warrants action under the customs law requiring penal action against th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates