9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Availing input credit under Notification No. 203/92 2. Mis-declaration of availed credit 3. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 4. Imposition of penalty and duty amount 5. Interpretation of glass vials as inputs Analysis: 1. The appellants held Value Based Advance Licences and imported goods under Notification No. 203/92, which required no utilization of input stage credit in the manufacture of exported goods. The Department alleged the appellants availed input credit, leading to a show cause notice for confiscation of goods and penalty imposition. The Commissioner adjudicated the notice, where the appellants admitted to availing credit on glass vials but argued they were not considered inputs. The Commissioner rejected their plea, confirming duty payment and imposing a reduced penalty. 2. The appellants contended that glass vials, for which credit was taken, should not be deemed as inputs, referencing a Madras High Court decision. They argued no evidence was presented by the Department to prove Modvat credit utilization, emphasizing the Department's burden of proof. Additionally, they claimed the reversal of Modvat credit was permissible under the Amnesty Scheme, citing relevant case law. 3. The Tribunal noted the appellants' admission of taking credit on glass vials and their argument regarding the nature of glass vials as inputs. However, the Tribunal found the appellants' own credit availing as evidence against their claim. The Tribunal referenced previous decisions to support the denial of Notification No. 203/92 benefits. Regarding the Amnesty Scheme, the Tribunal highlighted a Supreme Court decision, emphasizing strict interpretation of such schemes and dismissing the appellants' appeal. 4. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the duty demand due to the appellants' credit availing, reducing the penalty considering the minimal credit amount. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced on 17-9-2008, disposing of the appeal accordingly.
|
