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 907

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in question. Admittedly there were lapses on the part of the appellant, as appellant fail to inform the Department immediately when they were declared NPA by the bank. Further, it is a fact on record that appellant has failed to discharge their export obligation, in that circumstances duty is rightly demanded on the goods in question which were imported duty free. The equipments in question are held liable for confiscation as these equipments did not use for intended purpose - As goods has been confiscated, the same is the property of the Revenue and the goods can be redeemed on payment of redemption fine as imposed in the impugned order. Penalties - Held that: - the appellants has failed to discharge their export obligation in terms .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent and generating set without payment of duty availing the benefit of Custom Notification No. 153/93-CUS dated 13/08/1993. The appellant took a loan of ₹ 40 crores from Vijaya Bank for construction of building for housing STP units. Building was constructed. Imported equipments were also installed but the appellant could not start the project and did not discharge their export obligation. As appellant could not pay the installments of loan taken from the Vijaya Bank, the bank declared the appellant as NPA and the proceedings under Securitization Act were initiated against the appellant. The appellant from time to time intimated to the Department of such happenings. The bank sold the property in auction on 05/12/2011. The said action .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bt Recovery Tribunal and Appellate Debt Recovery Tribunal, but without any success. The appellant informed to the Department on 04/05/2012 about the auction of the property and also on 14/12/2012. Thereafter on 01/07/2013 informing the Department of dismissal of their case from Debt Recovery Tribunal. Further also informed on 09/06/2014 but Department did not take any action. In these circumstances, the fulfillment of export obligation was beyond control of the appellant, therefore, proceedings are to be dropped in the light of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Age of Enlightenment Publications Vs. CC (Air Cargo Export), New Delhi reported in MANU/CE/0706/2016 to say that it is beyond control of the appellant to fulfill the e .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... posed correctly. 5. Heard the parties considered the submissions. 6. In this case, it is an admitted fact that appellant is 100% EOU and imported the equipments availing the benefit of Notification No. 153/93-CUS dated 13/08/1993 without payment of duty. It is also an admitted fact that appellant has failed to fulfill their export obligation under Notification No. 153/93-CUS ibid. 7. The sole contention of the appellant is that as they could not repay the loan of the Vijaya Bank and bank took over the possessing property which has been auctioned. The contention of the appellant is that they kept informing Department of the happenings with the bank, as they could not repay the loan of the Vijaya Bank, therefore, the bank has took ov .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e notice was limited for confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty but in the adjudication, the duty was demanded from the appellant. In those facts of the case, the Hon ble Apex Court held that demand of duty was not the part of the show cause notice, therefore, duty cannot be demanded. In this case, duty has been demanded in the show cause notice itself, therefore, the facts of the case of Fortis Hospital Ltd. (supra) are not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. 10. Further, I find that in this case the equipments in question are held liable for confiscation as these equipments did not use for intended purpose. 11. As goods has been confiscated, the same is the property of the Revenue and the goods can be redee .....

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