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

2017 (9) TMI 905

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d the obligation of export has been discharged duly by the licensing authority vide letter date4d 24.10.2005. The said letter recognizes the fulfillment of export obligation under the EPCG licence dated 11.10.96 and advised the appellants to approach the customs authorities for release of B.G./LUT executed - In the present case, there is no findings that the said licences were held to be invalid by any competent authority. We are not in agreement with the findings of the original authority who declined to consider the communications issued by the licensing authority and proceeded on independent interpretation on Customs Notification, which does not stand legal scrutiny. The licence which was validated is for the said notification only. D .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rgone on the said imports. The impugned order has decided the issue against the appellants. The original authority held that the appellants failed to fulfill the condition No. 6 of the said notification regarding minimum value of import of capital goods and as such are not eligible for exemption and the duty foregone on already imported consignments should be paid back. 2. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that they could not import full value of licence dated 11.10.96 due to various reasons. The appellants had another unit operating as 100% EOU with similar business. They approached the licencing authority for de-bonding the said EOU and for clearing the capital goods valued at ₹ 8.46 Crores under another EPCG .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... no duty applicable prior to 16.09.1997. In other words, for the imports which are covered by the present proceedings which were imported prior to 16.09.97 no duty liability arises in case of imports under EPCG. Hence, there is no question of payments or misrepresentation. For imports after 16.09.97, even under EPCG the duty of 10% is prescribed which is discharged by the appellant for those capital goods imported from that date. The Ld. Counsel drew our attention to some of the Bills of Entry covering period post 16.09.97. As such, it is the submission of he appellant that the licensing authority has examined all the issues and by combining both the licences allowed the appellants to retain the concession as available under the licence dat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is that condition No. 6 of the Notification has not been fulfilled by them. We note as the appellant approached the licensing authority and as narrated above got the matter resolved by letter dated 30.01.2002. DGFT categorically stated that both zero rated EPCG licences were meant for the same export products and the total utilized value of both the zero duty licences put together exceeds ₹ 20 Crores, the Committee decided to permit the appellant to retain the facility of zero duty benefit against EPCG licence dated 11.10.96. 6. Further, we note that the capital goods which were imported have been put to intended use and the goods manufactured out of the same have been exported and the obligation of export has been discharged duly .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and follow the same for the Customs. In the present case, there is no findings that the said licences were held to be invalid by any competent authority. We are not in agreement with the findings of the original authority who declined to consider the communications issued by the licensing authority and proceeded on independent interpretation on Customs Notification, which does not stand legal scrutiny. The licence which was validated is for the said notification only. 7. In view of the above discussions and analysis, we find no legal justification in confirming duty demand against the appellants. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. ( Order dictated and pronounced in the open court ) - - TaxTMI - .....

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