TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthorities. The authorities in these appeals have issued a cyclostyled show cause notice to the appellants directing them to produce evidence, that exporter having not availed the cenvat credit on the inputs under the provisions of Rule 56A and/or 57A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. In our considered view, the appellants and importers herein cannot be called upon to produce evidence in respect of an act to be done by exporter and original licence holder. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal Nos. C/860, 870, 885/06-Mum - - - Dated:- 3-11-2016 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri Anil Balani, Advocate, and Shri G.B. Yadav, Advocate, for appellants Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terprises vs. CC, Mumbai 2005 (189) ELT 135, wherein it was held that the export obligation under Notification 203/92-Cus., if fulfilled by original licence holders and endorsement of the transferability by the DGFT authorities, the same cannot be held against the transferee to evidence any act of licence holder. They would also rely upon the final order of this Bench in the case of Globe Agencies vs. CC(I), Mumbai A/1256/14/CSTB/C-I dated 17.7.2014, to submit that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Hico Enterprises was upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court as reported at 2008 (228) ELT 161 (SC), wherein the apex court has held that the purchaser of VABAL is not liable to prove export obligation for the benefit of Notification 203/92 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Co. vs. CC(E), Mumbai, wherein this Bench had remanded the matter back to the lower authorities for ascertaining the fact whether modvat credit on inputs has been availed by the original licence holder or otherwise. 5. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. In these cases, the undisputed facts are that the appellants had purchased the DEEC licence from the market and availed the benefit of Notification 203/92-Cus; appellants were not original licence holder but transferees; the DEEC licences were not cancelled by the DGFT authorities nor were they procured fraudulently. 6. The benefit of Notification 203/92 is eligible to a licence holder, subject to conditions therein, and one of the conditio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... free allowance. By show cause notice dated 4-3-1999 appellant was called upon to show cause why an amount of ₹ 16,74,702/- could not be recovered and demanded in terms of proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short the Act ) for alleged contravention of certain conditions of Notification No. 203/92-Cus., dated 19-5-1992. Noticee denied the allegations. However, Commissioner of Customs (Import) confirmed the demand along with interest and penalty of Rupees One lakh. Same was held to be jointly payable by the original license holder and licensee. It was held that goods were liable in confiscation under Section 111 of the Act. As the goods were not available penalties of ₹ 3 lakhs and ₹ 1 lakh were levied und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the demand of duty of ₹ 3,72,573 /- along with interest, fine and penalty are upheld. 2. The contention of the appellants is that the appellants purchased Value Based Advance Licence (VABAL) from the market in respect of the goods exported. The show-cause notice was issued to the appellants for denying the benefit of Notification No.203/92-Cus as the appellants failed to show that input stage credit has not been availed by the manufacturer of the exported goods. 3. We find that this issue is settled by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Bombay vs Hico Enterprises - 2008(228) ELT 161(S.C). The Hon ble Supre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
