9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 1091 - AT - CustomsStay application - Waiver of pre deposit - violation of conditions of the Notification No. 52/2003-Cus., dated 31-3-2003 - Held that - Goods were imported duty free by availing benefit of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus, dated 31-3-2003 by the appellant who is an EOU. It is also not in dispute that the goods inputs which were imported were transferred to another EOU of the same appellant under CT-3 certificate. Since the goods are transferred to another EOU, the denial of benefit of Notification No. 52/2003, in our considered view, seems to be prima facie incorrect. On reading of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus., we find that the appellant is, prima facie, eligible to transfer the goods to another 100% EOU for further manufacture - Prima facie case in favour of assessee - Stay granted.
Issues:
1. Duty demand confirmation for transferring duty-free inputs between EOUs. 2. Interpretation of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus for transfer of goods. 3. Prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit. Issue 1: Duty Demand Confirmation for Transferring Duty-Free Inputs Between EOUs The appellant filed a Stay Petition seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 7,41,100/- due to a duty demand confirmed by the original adjudicating authority and upheld by the first appellate authority. The authorities found that the appellant had transferred duty-free inputs imported by an EOU to another EOU, deeming it a violation of the conditions of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus., dated 31-3-2003. Issue 2: Interpretation of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus for Transfer of Goods Upon hearing both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal noted that the goods were imported duty-free under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus by the appellant, who is an EOU. It was established that the imported goods were transferred to another EOU of the same appellant under a CT-3 certificate. The Tribunal observed that as the goods were transferred to another EOU, the denial of the benefit of the notification seemed prima facie incorrect. After examining Notification No. 52/2003-Cus, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was prima facie eligible to transfer the goods to another 100% EOU for further manufacture, supporting the appellant's case for waiver of pre-deposit. Issue 3: Prima Facie Case for Waiver of Pre-Deposit Based on the interpretation of the law and the specific provisions of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus, the Tribunal allowed the application for waiver of pre-deposit of amounts. Consequently, the recovery of the disputed amount was stayed until the appeal's final disposal, acknowledging the appellant's establishment of a prima facie case for the waiver. This judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD addressed the duty demand confirmation for transferring duty-free inputs between EOUs, interpreted the provisions of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus for the transfer of goods, and recognized the appellant's prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit based on the specific circumstances and legal framework outlined in the notification.
|
