2013 (12) TMI 33 - AT - Customs

Demand of duty - Import of Linear Alkyl Benzene - Exemption under Notification No.203/92-Cus. dated 19.05.92 - Appellant did not produce a certificate regarding non availment of modvat credit from the supporting manufacturer - Held that - appellants has produced the letter issued by JCCIE accepting their submission for inclusion of the supporting manufacturer in the licence - supplier was not availing modvat credit to submit that as evidence of showing that modvat credit has not been availed. We find that these two submissions render the two grounds on the basis of which credit was denied no longer existence - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of exemption under Notification No.203/92-Cus. due to non-compliance with conditions regarding the supporting manufacturer and modvat credit.
2. Absence of evidence regarding the supporting manufacturer's non-availment of modvat credit.
3. Lack of appeal against the order of the Commissioner, Export Promotion, and verification of facts.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the import of Linear Alkyl Benzene (LAB) by M/s. Euro Exports under an advance license for duty exemption. However, the Customs department initiated proceedings due to non-compliance with conditions, such as not declaring the supporting manufacturer's name in the license and the absence of a certificate confirming the non-availment of modvat credit. This led to a demand for duty payment amounting to Rs.3,96,56,000/- along with penalties and interest.

2. The appellant argued that they had requested the inclusion of the supporting manufacturer's name in the license, which was subsequently done by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. They also presented invoices from the supporting manufacturer indicating no duty payment, thus negating the possibility of modvat credit availed. Reference was made to a previous case where a similar benefit under Notification No.203/92 was allowed based on the supporting manufacturer not availing credit. The appellant's efforts to obtain certificates were acknowledged, and reliance was placed on the Commissioner of Customs' order supporting their case.

3. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs failed to provide evidence of an appeal against the Commissioner's order or any factual inaccuracies in the findings. The Tribunal considered both parties' submissions and found that the conditions for denying the exemption were no longer valid. The acceptance of the supporting manufacturer's inclusion in the license and the evidence of non-availment of modvat credit led to the reversal of the decision. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, granting them consequential relief.