Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. K.G. Denim Ltd. Versus CC, Coimbatore

2017 (9) TMI 905 - CESTAT CHENNAI

EPCG scheme - N/N. 111/95-Cus dated 05.06.1995 - import of Capital Goods - zero rate of duty - denial on the ground that condition No. 6 of the Notification has not been fulfilled - Held 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. - Th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nces 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. - Demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/2/2009 - Final Order No. 42007/2017 - Dated:- 8 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

26.82 Crores. The licence was issued 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 ₹ 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 ₹ 20 Crores. The appellant could import only capital goods valued at ₹ 13.24 Crores within the validity of the licensing period. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s 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 fo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

under Notification No. 111/95-Cus for zero rated import. The DGFT considered the request of the appellants and accordingly vide letter dated 30.01.2002 permitted them to retain the concession of zero rated import for the licence dated 11.10.96. The Ld. Counsel submitted that such permission given by the DGFT 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 DG .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

DGFT and the Commissioner construed duty payments on all imports which is not factually correct as there was 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 th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

quested for setting aside the order. 3. Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the original authority. He submitted that at the time of import, the conditions are specific and the appellants have failed to import the capital goods of required threshold value. Thereafter, they have approached the DGFT and it would appear that DGFT issued the permission to retain the earlier concession without properly appreciating the facts and the conditions of the said notification. He submitted that original author .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 authority disallowed the claim of the appellant 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 narrate .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

actured out of the same have been exported and 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. It is clear that the licensing authority was fully aware of the facts of the case and issue of licences, further permission to continue the use of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version