9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to Customs duty, CVD, Special Customs duty, textile cess, and penalties based on failure to install imported machinery within one year as per Notification No. 53/97-Cus. Analysis: The appellant contested the Commissioner's order demanding Customs duty, CVD, Special Customs duty, textile cess, and penalties totaling Rs. 1,88,26,572, asserting that the company failed to install the machines in the bonded area within a year from importation, violating Notification No. 53/97-Cus. However, it was noted that the original notification did not include the condition of installation within one year at the time of importation, which was later introduced through an amendment in Notification No. 65/99-Cus. The new condition required installation within one year or within an extended period not exceeding 5 years. The appellant argued for a waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties, citing the absence of the installation condition in the original notification. The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner overlooked the absence of the installation condition in the original notification applicable during importation. Consequently, the appellant established a prima facie case for the waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties. As a result, an interim stay was granted against the recovery of duty and penalties under the impugned order without any pre-deposit requirement. The stay application was allowed, and the appeal was scheduled for final hearing in due course. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues surrounding the challenge to the imposition of duties and penalties based on the installation timeline of imported machinery as per the relevant customs notifications. The Tribunal's decision to grant an interim stay against duty and penalties pending appeal reflects a consideration of the prima facie case presented by the appellant regarding the absence of the installation condition in the original notification.
|
