2007 (12) TMI 366 - AT - Customs

Warehousing station - Declaration of warehousing station - declaring of Nadendla Kandriga Village as a warehousing station

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Original (De novo) No. Cus. 01/2007
- Commissioner's rejection of application for declaring a place as a warehousing station
- Implementation of CESTAT's directions by the Commissioner
- Revenue's appeal against CESTAT's decision

Analysis:

The appeal was filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Original (De novo) No. Cus. 01/2007 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Guntur. The Commissioner had dropped the proceedings against the appellants based on directions from the CESTAT in Final Order No. 1550/2006. The CESTAT found that the Government of India and CBEC had adopted a liberal approach towards 100% EOUs to promote exports. The Commissioner had rejected the appellant's request for declaring a place as a warehousing station, citing technical reasons related to permissions under the Foreign Trade Policy. The CESTAT set aside the Commissioner's order, directing the consideration of the request without further delay.

The Revenue raised objections to the CESTAT's decision, stating that the unit had diverted the DG set to a location without informing the Department, and the necessary permission from the Development Commissioner was not obtained. The Revenue argued that the permission granted by the Development Commissioner under the FTP 2004-09 could not apply to an earlier period, leading to the rejection of the application for declaring the village as a warehousing station. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner's order was not legal and proper, warranting an appeal.

However, the CESTAT found that the Commissioner had implemented its order as directed. It was unclear whether the Revenue had accepted the Tribunal's order or filed an appeal to the High Court. Since there was no stay of the Tribunal's order by the High Court, the Commissioner had followed the CESTAT's order in declaring the village as a warehousing station. The CESTAT noted that the Commissioner had issued the demand on technical grounds, in line with the Tribunal's order, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal for lack of merit.

In conclusion, the CESTAT upheld its decision, emphasizing the Commissioner's compliance with its directions and the absence of any legal infirmity in the Commissioner's order. The liberal approach towards 100% EOUs for export promotion was reiterated, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.