9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1003X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty only) availing duty exemption under DEEC license; but the appellant had not furnished any evidence for having fulfilled export obligation which tantamount to violation of conditions of Notification No. 93/2004 dated 10.09.2004 (as amended). The appellant was also show-caused as to why duty along with applicable rate of interest should not be demanded. The above show-cause notice culminated in the Order-in-Original dated 27.02.2015 against which the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Bangalore which was also dismissed. Hence the assessee is prosecuting this appeal before this forum. 2. Heard Shri. Krishna Murthy, Consultant for the appellant and Smt. Kavitha Poduwal, DR for the Revenue, I have con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any evidence of discharging export obligation namely Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) from the licensing authority till date. She further submitted that the authorities having no other option, proceeded to demand the duty since the appellant did not furnish EODC even after two years and eight months after the obligation period. In response learned consultant placed reliance on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of GKN Sinter Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India - 2010 (249) E.L.T. 481 (Bom.) and drew my attention specifically to paragraph 12 & 13 of the above judgment, which reads as follows: "12. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has fulfilled the export obligation substantially and wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lected under Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the provisions of the Customs (Attachment of Property of Defaulters for Recovery of Government Dues) Rules, 1995, because the petitioner has not produced the EODC." 5. Further, he also placed reliance on an order of this very Bench in the case of Bells Controls Ltd. Vs. CC, Bangalore - 2006 (198) E.L.T. 41 (Tri. Bang.) and invited the attention to paragraph 5 which reads as follows: "5. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The adjudicating authority has demanded the entire duty foregone from the appellants for non-fulfillment of export obligation. The adjudication order was passed on 30-9-2002. However from the record, we find that as on 11-12-2001, the total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aside the demand of duty and imposition of penalties. As regards the confiscation of the detained goods, the appellants have not challenged the same. Hence we uphold that portion of the order confiscating the detained goods valued at Rs. 6,11,767.55. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms." 6. I find from the documents placed on record which has also been observed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) at paragraph 3 of the impugned order as to the grounds urged before him by the assessee, that the assessee had categorically claimed that their obligation against the Advance Licence got subsumed from the export obligation of the EOU. I also find that it is not the case of the Revenue that the above application filed by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
