Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2004 (6) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2004 (6) TMI 530 - AT - Customs

Issues: Stay application for waiver of pre-deposit of interest amount under EPCG Scheme.

Analysis:
1. The appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit of interest amount of Rs. 15,70,770 under the EPCG Scheme due to non-fulfillment of export obligation. The duty demand on capital goods imported was confirmed by the Original Authority based on Notification No. 110/95-Cus., dated 5-6-1995. The appellant contested the interest claim at 24% from the date of clearance of imported goods, arguing that the Notification did not mandate payment of interest for benefits under the EPCG Scheme.

2. The Tribunal considered previous judgments, including Philips (India) Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai, Dyna Lamps & Glass Works Ltd. v. CC, Chennai, and Fal Industries Ltd. v. CC, Chennai, which established that interest is not leviable under the EPCG Scheme. The learned Consultant emphasized that the issue was no longer res integra based on these judgments, suggesting that the appeal could be disposed of accordingly. The SDR, while not objecting to an out-of-turn hearing, indicated a need to verify the applicability of the citations.

3. After careful consideration and review of the cited judgments, the Tribunal found a strong prima facie case in favor of the appellants. The citations clarified that neither the Scheme, the relevant Notification, nor the Customs Act provided for charging interest on export obligation fulfillment. Consequently, the stay application was allowed, granting waiver of pre-deposit and suspending recovery pending appeal disposal. The Tribunal scheduled an out-of-turn hearing for the appeal on October 14, 2004, with instructions for the SDR to obtain a report. Notably, no recovery was permitted until the appeal's final resolution.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates