9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 905X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued in terms of Exim Policy 1992-97. As per the policy, zero rated import under the licence is allowed if capital goods value is above Rs. 20 Crores. The Customs Notification No. 111/95-Cys dated 05.06.1995 extended full exemption for such imports on the condition that a minimum value of capital goods imported should be Rs. 20 Crores. The appellant could import only capital goods valued at Rs. 13.24 Crores within the validity of the licensing period. It was extended upto 31.10.2000. Out of these imports, goods valued at Rs. 11.24 Crores were imported without payment of duty of Rs. 3.35 Crores. Since they could not fulfill the conditions of the Notification for minimum threshold limit of value of the import of capital goods, Revenue initiate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GFT was not accepted by the original authority on the ground that the conditions of notification shall be independently interpreted and there is mis-representation by the appellant before the DGFT by stating that they have imported and cleared goods under these two EPCG licences by paying 10% CVD in terms of notification No. 70/97-Cus dated 16.09.97 which amended the Notification No. 111/95-Cus. introducing 10% rate off duty. The Ld. Counsel submitted that as per the directions of DGFT, for examining their request for zero rated import of capital goods, they have submitted all the Bills of Entry for import of capital goods already made and there is no mis-representation. Apparently the DGFT and the Commissioner construed duty payments on al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itions in Customs notification to determine the duty liability in accordance with such notification. Since, the appellants did not fulfill the condition No.6 of the Notification No. 111/95, there is no question of extending the concession to the appellants. The Ld. AR submitted that the letter dated 30.01.2002 of DGFT does not absolve the appellants from duty liability by denying exemption under Notification No. 111/95. 4. We have heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 5. The dispute in the present case is with respect to eligibility of the appellants for zero rate of duty in respect of capital goods imported under EPCG licence dated 11.10.96. The facts as narrated above are not in dispute. The only point on which the original a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at date and some other after that date. Wherever duty is applicable, after 18.09.97, the same appears to have been paid as seen from the copies of the Bill of Entry perused by us. There cannot be any duty payment prior to 16.09.97 as there is no duty applicable. As such there is no question of mis-representation in this regard. Even otherwise, the licensing authority has merged two EPCG licences and allowed the appellants to continue to have zero rated facility in respect of the licences dated 11.10.96. We note EPCG scheme is formulated/implemented by the DGFT authorities. The licensing powers are with the said authorities. Unless the licences are held to be invalid for the stated reason by the specific authority, the same cannot be repudia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
