9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confirmation of demand by Commissioner based on non-compliance with export obligations. 2. Challenge against duty payment and confiscation order for non-compliance with export obligations. 3. Dismissal of Revenue's Civil Appeal and subsequent order by jurisdictional Commissioner. 4. Determination of whether foreign exchange earned was from goods produced utilizing a specific computer system. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Original confirming a demand of Rs. 2,93,68,904 claimed in the Show Cause Notice due to non-compliance with export obligations. The appellant had applied to set up a unit for manufacturing computer software for the overseas market, authorized by the Ministry of Commerce. Customs authorities ordered duty payment and confiscation of goods for non-compliance, which was challenged before the Tribunal in a previous appeal. 2. The Tribunal in the previous appeal set aside the order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need to examine the earnings from consultancy services in correlation with goods imported. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to consider the details of the contract, earnings, and compliance with terms and conditions for extending the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 133/94. 3. Following the dismissal of the Revenue's Civil Appeal, the jurisdictional Commissioner passed the impugned order, questioning the source of foreign exchange earned by the appellant. The Commissioner opined that the earnings were not from the sale of goods produced utilizing a specific computer system, leading to the current challenge. 4. The central issue in the current appeal was to determine whether the foreign exchange earned was derived from goods produced using a particular computer system. The appellant presented various contracts and an affidavit establishing the correlation between the exported goods and the specific computer system. The Tribunal found a clear relationship between the goods exported and the 2200 computer system, indicating an arguable case against the impugned order. Consequently, pre-deposit was waived, and coercive recovery measures were restrained until further orders to safeguard the appellant's interests. An expedited hearing was scheduled due to the substantial amount involved to protect the revenue's interests.
|
