2013 (12) TMI 1041 - AT - Customs

Benefit of Customs Notification No. 94/2004 and 92/2004 - Non production of the EODC certificate within the prescribed time as per the Notification - Held that - As the appellant have now obtained the EODC certificate from DGFT although the appellant has produced the same with a delay it is only procedural lapse. Therefore the denial of benefit of Notification on the ground that the appellant has not produced within the prescribed time is not sustainable - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to submit Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) within prescribed time period.
2. Denial of benefit of Notification due to procedural lapse.
3. Appeal against impugned demand and interest confirmed.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The appellant failed to submit the EODC within the prescribed time limit, resulting in a confirmed demand along with interest. The appellant argued that they fulfilled the export obligation within the stipulated period and obtained the EODC from the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). The appellant contended that as they obtained the EODC and fulfilled the export obligation, the demands against them were not sustainable.

Issue 2: The main contention revolved around the failure to produce the EODC within the specified time frame as per the Notification. Despite the delay in submitting the EODC, it was considered a procedural lapse. The Tribunal noted that the appellant eventually obtained the EODC from the DGFT, rendering the denial of benefits based on the timing of submission as unsustainable.

Issue 3: After hearing the arguments and reviewing the impugned orders, the Tribunal found that the only charge against the appellant was the delay in producing the EODC as per the Notification requirements. However, since the appellant eventually obtained the EODC, the Tribunal deemed the denial of benefits unjustified. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed. The stay applications were also disposed of accordingly.

This judgment highlights the importance of fulfilling procedural requirements within the specified time frames while also recognizing the ultimate fulfillment of obligations as a mitigating factor in legal proceedings.