9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e above two appellants on the same dispute for 1994-95 and 1995-96 sugar seasons. 2. M/s. The Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkhane Ltd., and M/s. Sreerama Sahakara Sakkare Kharkhane Ltd., manufacturing sugar short delivered/not delivered the export quotas assigned to them by the Export Agency (Agency) in terms of Sugar Export Promotion Act, 1958 (SEPA or, the Act) for the sugar seasons 1991-93. They also did not pay the Agency, proceeds of the quota sold in domestic market. Instead they paid the Agency the loss suffered by the Agency in sourcing their export quota from the market and exporting at a loss. During adjudication in the initial round the jurisdictional Commissioner had dropped the proceedings initiated to demand A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. One lakh each were also imposed. He held that the appellants had not produced evidence as directed by the Tribunal and that the arrangement followed was not as per SEPA. 4. In the appeal before us the appellants have argued that they did not deliver the quota as the Agency did not demand that they should deliver the quota. SEPA required them to deliver the export quota only when the Agency demanded. As regards the acceptability of the certificates and their adequacy, they submitted that the letters from the Agency and Sugar Directorate testified that certificates were true and lawfully issued. The Ld Counsel reiterated these arguments. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the respondents cited the following case law in support of their claim that o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their own without corresponding advice from the designated authority under the SEPA was illegal. He also submitted that the notices to demand AED in terms of SEPA were issued beyond the normal period and the demands were barred by limitation. 6. Ld SDR for the Revenue submitted that the appellants had only made good the net loss suffered by the Agency in buying sugar from the domestic market to meet the quotas allotted to the appellants and the appellants had not delivered the export quotas to the Agency. Therefore the demand of AED was in accordance with law. On the same grounds taken in the appeals discussed above the Ld SDR justified the demand affirmed in the order impugned in appeal No. E/406/2000, for quantity not deliver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchase such quantity of sugar it may consider necessary for export at any time. In taking action in terms of Section 8, the Agency shall take into account the demand supply situation in the domestic and international markets for sugar, the convenience of transporting sugar from particular factories for export, among other factors. The Agency may sell sugar or allow any sugar factory to sell whole or part of the export quota assigned to it, at a price approved by it on condition that the sale proceeds are paid to it. As per Section 9, the Agency shall reimburse the sugar factory owners the proceeds of export of the quota sugar less the expenditure incurred by it. &nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he matters in accordance with the provisions of SEPA. The Directorate of Sugar, Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies, had also informed the appellants of the above arrangement to remit the loss suffered by the Agency in the above arrangement. The letter No. 14-2/96-E dated 15.03.99 of the Sugar Directorate, established beyond any doubt that the arrangement evolved with the trade was in accordance with the SEPA. The certificate dated 4.2.95 issued by the Export Agency in its discharge of official duties in implementing a Central Act have to be accepted as regular, lawful and truthful. This position has been confirmed by the Export Agency in their reply in response to the reference by the office of the adjudicatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
