9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confirmation of demand of customs duty and imposition of penalty for non-availment of Modvat benefit under Notification No. 203/92-Cus. Analysis: The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi heard the case where the Commissioner of Customs confirmed a demand of customs duty and imposed a penalty on the appellants for allegedly not producing evidence of non-availment of Modvat benefit. The appellants argued that they provided raw materials to a supporting manufacturer for export products, and the manufacturer certified non-availment of Modvat benefit. However, the Central Excise Department declined to issue a certificate due to lack of records. The appellants requested a stay based on the supporting manufacturer's certificate. The JDR representing the Respondent contended that the appellants should have obtained the certificate from the Central Excise Department directly, and the absence of such a certificate should prevent the grant of a stay. After considering the arguments, the Tribunal noted that the Central Excise Department's refusal to issue a certificate was due to the unavailability of records, and in the absence of evidence from the Revenue showing the appellants availed Modvat credit, the certificate from the supporting manufacturer should be accepted. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to grant a stay on the recovery of duty and penalty amounts until the appeal's final disposal, scheduling a regular hearing for a later date. This judgment highlights the importance of proper documentation and certification in cases involving the availment of benefits under customs regulations. It underscores the Tribunal's discretion to grant a stay based on the evidence presented and the failure of the Revenue to provide contrary evidence. The decision also emphasizes the significance of supporting manufacturer certificates in establishing compliance with regulatory requirements, especially when official documentation is unavailable.
|
