9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1066X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 dated 05.062007 0530145100 dated 30.11.2007 0530144681 dated 28/08/2007 EODC issuance date 30.03.2017 30.03.2017 30.03.2017 Period 2007-08 2007-08 2007-08 Order-in-Appeal CC-A-CUSTOMS - D-1-EXP-NCH-439-2019-20 dated 15.11.2019 CC-A-CUSTOMS - D-1-EXP-NCH-440-2019-20 dated 14.11.2019 CC-A-CUSTOMS - D-1EXP-NCH-441-2019-20 dated 14.11.2019 Order-in-Original HKP/ADC/ACE/31/2017 dated 16.3.2017 HKP/ADC/ACE/32/ 2017 dated 16.3.2017 HKP/ADC/ACE/30/ 2017 dated 16.3.2017 Show Cause Notice HKP/ADC/SCN/ACE/ Gr.VII/9/2016 dated 22.06.2016 HKP/ADC/SCN/ACE/ Gr.VII/24/2016 dated 22.06.2016 HKP/ADC/SCN/ACE/ Gr.VII/08/2016 dated 22.06.2016 Amounts (Duty, Redemption fine, Penalty confirmed in OIO and OIA) * D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion respective Show cause notices dated 22.06.2016 were served upon the appellants proposing the recovery of respective total custom duty foregone (as shown in the table above) on the imported goods along with the interest and the proportionate penalty. The said proposal was confirmed initially vide the Oder-in-Original No. 31/2017 dated 16.03.2017. The appeal thereof has been rejected. The requisite details of each of the appeals are tabulated hereunder:- 3. I have heard Ms. Jyoti Pal and Mr. Ashwani Bhatia learned Counsels for the appellant and Mr. Yashvir Singh, learned Departmental Representative. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant, that the appellant has imported certain capital goods under EPCG & EODC License in the year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before him. However, he has been miserably silent about the same and has mechanically rejected the appeal. Order, accordingly is prayed to be set aside and appeal is prayed to be allowed. 6. While rebutting these submissions, learned D.R. has impressed upon that in terms of Notification No.97 of 2004, the appellant was required to fulfill the export obligation within a period of 8 years from the date of issue of license. In the proportion such that 50% of the obligation was to be fulfilled in the block of first to 6th Year and remaining 50% was to be fulfilled within a block of 7th to 8th year. Admittedly, the said condition has not been fulfilled by the appellant. In fact the appellant failed to appear before the original adjudicating au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 respectively. 5. There occurred an error in average EO figure that the appellants case, for its modification, was pending consideration before EPCG, in DGFT Headquarters that too since much prior the expiry of the aforesaid period, for fulfilling export obligation. 6. EODC stands finally issued on 30th march, 2017 i.e. -prior passing of Order-in-Appeal and 15 days later than Order-in-Original. 8. The above admitted facts are clear to hold that once EODC had been issued undisputedly appellants have fulfilled the export obligation arising out of the license issued under Notification No.97/2004 well before the stipulated time (in year 2011 itself). Undisputedly the discharge certificate thereof was duly applied with however, could not b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ending before DGFT is not disputed by the respondent (Department). If there is delay in regularization and issuance of EODC by the DGFT, thus, the customs authorities cannot penalize the petitioner by resorting to coercive action." 9. In the present case, it is also not in dispute that the petitioner has fulfilled the export obligation substantially and wherever there is little short fall, the petitioner has sought regularization and issuance of EODC by offering to pay customs duty proportionately to that extent. The fact that there is delay in regularization and issuance of EODC by the DGFT, is very much apparent and also it has not been disputed by the department, the customs authorities cannot penalize the petitioner by resorting to co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t once EODC is issued, the Department cannot recover the amount of duty waiver. This has been held by this Tribunal also in the case of Eicher Tractor vs. CC, New Delhi reported 2018 (10) TMI 413 (Trib.-Delhi). Similar has been the observations of Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Pointec Writing Instruments Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin reported as 2019 (8) TMI 1496 (CESTAT-Bangalore). Relevant portion is extracted below: "7. .............. Since, the only ground on which the demand was confirmed is non-submission of EODC despite that the same was submitted by the appellant prior the order under challenge was passed showing that he has fulfilled the export obligation within the time. 12. Further, Cir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
