9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Denial of exemption scheme under Notification 203/92-Cus. 2. Availment of input stage credit under Rule 56A or Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. 3. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Issue 1: Denial of exemption scheme under Notification 203/92-Cus. The appellants, merchant-exporters holding value-based advance licenses, exported woven fabrics to Hong Kong and transferred import licenses to other parties. A show cause notice was issued proposing denial of the exemption scheme under Notification 203/92-Cus. The Commissioner confirmed the demand against the license transferees and imposed a penalty on the appellants. The appellants appealed, arguing that there was no evidence of availing input stage credit, and the exported goods were exempt from Central Excise duty, thus the notification's condition was not breached. The tribunal found no material to establish availing of input stage credit by the manufacturer or license transferees. As a result, the contravention of the notification condition was not proven, leading to setting aside of the penalty and allowing the appeal. Issue 2: Availment of input stage credit under Rule 56A or Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. The key contention revolved around whether the appellants or the license transferees had availed input stage credit as per the notification's condition. The tribunal noted the absence of evidence to support such availing of credit by either party. The appellants argued that since the exported goods were exempt from Central Excise duty, the question of availing Modvat credit on inputs did not arise. This argument remained uncontested. Consequently, the tribunal held that the contravention of the notification condition was not established by the Revenue, leading to the setting aside of the penalty. Issue 3: Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner had imposed a penalty on the appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the tribunal, upon finding no evidence of availing input stage credit and considering the exemption of the exported goods from Central Excise duty, set aside the penalty imposed on the appellants. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants based on the lack of proof of contravention of the relevant condition in Notification 203/92, resulting in the penalty being rescinded. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented, and the tribunal's findings, ultimately leading to the decision to set aside the penalty imposed on the appellants.
|
