2011 (7) TMI 927 - AT - Customs

Waiver of pre-deposit - It is the case of the Revenue that the appellant had not completed the export obligation as committed by them - It is seen from the record that the adjudicating authority has come to the conclusion that the appellant has not complied with the export obligation in the year 2009, while the DGFT authorities have issued the redemption certificate for the year 2006-2008 - Ld. Jt. CDR, submits that certificate was produced for first time, matter may be remanded to the lower authorities to ascertain the facts - Appeal is allowed by way of remand to adjudicating authority

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand of customs duty forgone by Revenue authorities against licenses issued to the appellant.
2. Discharge certificate/redemption letter not received by the appellant during proceedings.
3. Discrepancy between the conclusion of the adjudicating authority and the redemption certificate issued by DGFT authorities.

Analysis:
1. The issue in this case revolves around the demand of customs duty forgone by Revenue authorities against licenses issued to the appellant. The Revenue alleges that the appellant failed to fulfill the export obligation as committed. The appellant, on the other hand, argues that the entire export obligation has been discharged, presenting a redemption letter from DGFT authorities as evidence.

2. The appellant's counsel highlights that during the proceedings, they did not receive the discharge certificate/redemption letter. However, during the hearing, the appellant produces a copy of the redemption letter dated 22.12.2010 from DGFT authorities, asserting that the export obligation has been fulfilled.

3. The Joint CDR contends that the certificate was only produced for the first time during the hearing and suggests that the matter be remanded to lower authorities for further investigation. Upon reviewing the records, the Tribunal acknowledges the discrepancy between the adjudicating authority's conclusion that the export obligation was not met in 2009 and the redemption certificate issued for the years 2006-2008 by DGFT authorities. Without expressing a final opinion on the case's merits, the Tribunal sets aside the impugned order and remands the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh consideration following the principles of natural justice. The appellant is granted the opportunity to provide evidence for the EODC Certificate presented during the personal hearing, and the appeal is allowed by way of remand.