9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Total demand and penalty imposed under Section 112A. 2. Shortfall in export obligation from 1986-1994 and 1995-1998. 3. Demand of customs duty/excise duty on entire goods imported/procured. 4. Interpretation of Notification No. 13/08 regarding duty demand. 5. Encashment of Bank Guarantee and waiver of pre-deposit. Analysis: 1. The judgment addressed the total demand of Rs. 3,45,89,878/- and the penalty of Rs. 5,05,000/- imposed under Section 112A. The appellant, a PSU engaged in granite product manufacturing and export, faced proceedings due to a shortfall in export obligations from 1986-1994 and 1995-1998. The Commissioner demanded customs duty/excise duty on all imported/procured goods, disregarding the appellant's export consignments to meet obligations. 2. The learned Advocate highlighted Condition 3 of Notification No. 13/08, arguing that duty should only be demanded when imported materials are unused. The appellant couldn't utilize some imported consumables, leading to a dispute over the liability amount of Rs. 4,53,000. Despite revenue encashing a Bank Guarantee for Rs. 16.5 lakhs, the Tribunal found the encashed amount sufficient for the appeal hearing. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered a complete waiver of the balance amount pre-deposit until appeal disposal, prohibiting coercive recovery actions. 3. The judgment emphasized the importance of fulfilling export obligations and the consequences of non-compliance. It clarified the interpretation of relevant notifications and conditions governing duty demands on imported materials. The Tribunal's decision to waive the pre-deposit balanced the interests of the appellant and revenue authorities, ensuring a fair appeal process without undue financial burden. The ruling provided clarity on the application of legal provisions in cases involving export obligations and duty liabilities, contributing to jurisprudence in customs and excise matters.
|
