9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Waiver of deposit of duty and penalty under Notification 203/92 due to contravention of conditions for exemption; Invocation of extended period of limitation under Section 28(1) based on suppression by exporter; Applicability of extended period when no act or omission justifies it. Analysis: The judgment deals with an application for the waiver of deposit of duty and penalty amounting to Rs. 15,29,068/- and Rs. 1 lakh, respectively, imposed on the appellant. The issue arises from the contention that the goods imported were not eligible for exemption under Notification 203/92 as the condition of availing Modvat credit in the manufacture of the exported product was violated. Regarding the invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 28(1) based on suppression by the exporter, it was argued that the demand made in 1999 was time-barred as there was no act or omission by the appellant justifying the extended period. The Tribunal accepted the prima facie view that the demand was indeed barred by limitation. The Commissioner's argument that the appellant should have exercised proper care before the license transfer was deemed insufficient, as the transfer was permitted by the licensing authority. This position finds support in previous Tribunal decisions, such as Plastchem Industries v. CCE - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 775. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to waive the deposit of duty and penalty and stayed their recovery based on the prima facie view that the demand was time-barred and the extended period under Section 28(1) did not apply in the absence of any act or omission justifying its invocation. This decision was crucial in providing relief to the appellant and upholding the principles of fairness and legal limitations in duty recovery proceedings.
|
