9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 995 - AT - CustomsWaiver of pre deposit - whether pre-condition of import prescribed by column 3 of S. No. 4 of Notification No. 13/2010, dated 19-2-2010 shall be satisfied if a certificate as prescribed in terms of para (b) of amended Notification No. 84/2010, dated 27-8-2010 is furnished by the importer at the time of import - Held that - subsequent Notification No. 84/2010, dated 27-8-2010 which is in continuation of Notification No. 13/2010, dated 19-2-2010 and as per preamble of former that does not make subsequent notification to be an alien. Production of certificate from proper authority was mandatory condition of the notification dated 19-2-2010. Subsequent notification dated 27-8-2010 was issued to remove difficulty and appears to be clarificatory in nature. Following the ratio laid down by Apex Court in the case of ITW Signode India Ltd. v. CCE - 2003 (11) TMI 114 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , we are prima facie satisfied that if pre-deposit is directed at this stage that shall cause undue hardship to the appellant. Accordingly, there shall be waiver of pre-deposit of demand during pendency of the appeal or till 30-9-2014 whichever is earlier. - Stay granted.
Issues Involved: Interpretation of import pre-condition under Notification No. 13/2010 and subsequent Notification No. 84/2010.
Analysis: 1. The primary issue in this case was whether the pre-condition of import as prescribed by column 3 of S. No. 4 of Notification No. 13/2010 would be satisfied if a certificate as per para (b) of amended Notification No. 84/2010 was provided at the time of import. The appellant argued that all conditions, including the clarificatory condition of Notification No. 84/2010, were met, and the certificate submitted was valid. The Revenue disputed the validity of the certificate issued by Prasar Bharati, claiming it did not meet the requirements of the notification. 2. The appellant contended that the goods were imported for use in the Commonwealth Games, fulfilling all conditions of the relevant notifications. The only point of contention raised by the Revenue was regarding the certificate's authenticity. Other issues such as mis-matching of goods, nature of goods, and absence of an IEC code were no longer in dispute. The appellant sought exemption under Notification No. 13/2010, stating that any pre-deposit requirement would cause undue hardship. 3. On the other hand, the Revenue argued that the adjudication order was correctly passed as the appellant failed to provide the prescribed certificate under Notification No. 13/2010. They justified the duty and penalty imposition based on the alleged discrepancies in the show cause notice, including the IEC code and the authority issuing the certificate. 4. The Tribunal observed that the subsequent Notification No. 84/2010 was a continuation of Notification No. 13/2010 and appeared to be clarificatory in nature. The production of a certificate from the proper authority was deemed a mandatory condition of the initial notification. Citing the precedent set by the Apex Court in a similar case, the Tribunal found that directing a pre-deposit at this stage would cause undue hardship to the appellant. Therefore, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of the demand pending the appeal or until a specified date. 5. The Tribunal granted the Revenue the opportunity to present their defense during the regular hearing, allowing them to argue all relevant points in support of their case.
|
