2010 (6) TMI 616 - HC - Central Excise

Extension of export obligation - Held that - It is pertinent to note that despite the fact that a period of almost three years has elapsed since the passing of the order by the Tribunal, the petitioner is still not ready and willing to deposit the amount directed by the Tribunal, petitioner is not in a position to discharge the liability by making pre-deposit even if extension of time and/or installments are granted, petition fails and is accordingly rejected. Interim relief granted stands vacated.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal for pre-deposit amount, Financial hardship as relevant factor for pre-deposit amount determination, Prima facie case for total waiver of duty, Diversion of duty-free goods into domestic market, Proper exercise of discretion by Tribunal, Inability to make pre-deposit despite opportunity.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal seeking a direction to hear the petitioner on merits after dispensing with the pre-deposit amount. The Tribunal had directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 2 crore within twelve weeks, failing which the appeal would be dismissed without further notice. The Tribunal considered the diversion of duty-free goods into the domestic market, not non-fulfillment of export obligations, as the basis for demanding duty. The Tribunal found no prima facie case for a total waiver of duty and imposed the pre-deposit requirement based on the circumstances of the case. The petitioner argued financial hardship as a relevant factor for determining the pre-deposit amount, emphasizing the need for considering such factors under Section 35F of the Act.

The Tribunal's decision was based on the fact that the imported goods were sold in the market instead of being utilized for the specified purpose under the DEEC Scheme. The Tribunal noted that the duty was demanded due to the diversion of goods, not for non-fulfillment of export obligations. Despite the petitioner's plea for adjournment linked to another case, the Tribunal found no direct impact on the main issue at hand. The Tribunal provided detailed reasons for the pre-deposit requirement, indicating a proper exercise of discretion. The Court noted that the petitioner had not complied with the Tribunal's directive to deposit the amount even after a significant period had elapsed since the order.

The Court rejected the petitioner's argument of financial inability to make the pre-deposit, as the petitioner failed to discharge the liability despite opportunities for extension or installment payments. Ultimately, the Court found no grounds for interference, leading to the dismissal of the petition and vacating of interim relief without any costs imposed. The judgment upheld the Tribunal's decision on the pre-deposit amount, considering the specific circumstances of the case and the nature of the duty demand related to the diversion of duty-free goods into the domestic market.