2012 (4) TMI 144 - AT - Customs

Re-export - import of capital goods by availing Notification No.158/95-Cus dated 14.11.1995 - goods so imported are to be re-exported within a period of six months Revenue stated that the applicants have not exported the goods within six months - applicants contented that as per Notification No.158/95-Cus, the Commissioner of Customs can extend time for further period of six months - Commissioner (Appeals) who directed the jurisdictional officer to dispose of the application for extension of time under Notification No.158/95-Cus within three weeks of the receipt of the order by issuing a speaking order - applicants was informed by letterthat the request of the applicant has been rejected by Commissioner (Appeals) applicant contented that the request was rejected without affording an opportunity of hearing to the applicants and no speaking order was passed Held that - Commissioner of Customs directed the jurisdictional officer to pass a speaking order, however, no speaking order is passed rejecting the application of assessee without giving opportunity to be heard -impugned order is set aside after waiving the pre-deposit of dues and the matter is remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs to decide the issue afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the applicants

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of duty under Notification No.158/95-Cus for import of capital goods.
2. Extension of time for re-exporting goods under Notification No.158/95-Cus.
3. Lack of opportunity of hearing and absence of a speaking order in rejecting the request for extension of time.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The applicants sought waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs.5,73,700 for importing capital goods under Notification No.158/95-Cus, which required re-export within six months. The Revenue claimed non-compliance, leading to the demand. The applicants argued that the Commissioner of Customs could extend the re-export deadline by another six months. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order, directing the jurisdictional officer to decide on the extension request within three weeks. However, the Deputy Commissioner informed the applicants of the rejection without a hearing or a speaking order from the Commissioner of Customs, rendering the decision unsustainable.

Issue 2: Despite the Commissioner of Customs instructing a speaking order, none was issued in rejecting the extension request, depriving the applicants of a fair hearing. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the pre-deposit of dues was waived. The matter was remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs for a fresh decision after providing the applicants with an opportunity of hearing, thereby disposing of the appeal through remand.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, in the case concerning waiver of pre-deposit of duty and extension of time for re-exporting goods under Notification No.158/95-Cus, found the rejection of the extension request without a hearing or a speaking order to be unjust. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, waived the pre-deposit of dues, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Customs for a fresh decision after affording the applicants an opportunity of hearing.