2014 (5) TMI 124 - AT - Customs

Duty demand - Confiscation of goods - Redemption fine - Violations of various conditions of the EPCG licences - Held that - Advocate for the Appellants have produced the various evidences showing that the EPCG licences have been amended with the retrospective effect and the name of M/s.Caparo Engineering India Ltd. has been included in the EPCG licences as supporting manufacturer with the retrospective effect. The Appellants have further produced the Chartered Engineer s Certificate to the effect that the imported dies and fixtures have been installed in the premises of a supporting manufacturer and that the export obligations stipulated in the EPCG licences have already been fulfilled by the Appellant. It is evident from the various submissions of the Ld.Advocate that the evidences produced before this Tribunal were not available during the adjudication proceedings. - Matter remitted back with order of pre deposit - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Waiver of Customs duty, penalty, and confiscation of imported goods under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. The case involved applications by two companies seeking waiver of Customs duty, penalty, and confiscation of imported goods under the Customs Act, 1962. M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. imported goods against EPCG licenses and were alleged to have violated conditions by diverting the goods to another company, M/s. Caparo Engineering India Ltd., without fulfilling export obligations. The show cause notice led to penalties being imposed on both companies.

2. The advocate for the Applicants argued that the imported goods were installed at the premises of M/s. Caparo Engineering India Ltd., and export obligations were fulfilled. They presented evidence, including a Chartered Accountant's Certificate and EPCG Committee's approval for retrospective inclusion of M/s. Caparo Engineering India Ltd. as a supporting manufacturer. The advocate cited various judgments to support their case.

3. The advocate requested the case to be remitted back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, offering a pre-deposit pending the new adjudication. The Revenue representative had no objection to the matter being remanded for fresh decision.

4. The Tribunal found that the evidence presented by the Appellants was not available during the initial adjudication. Despite the request for remand, with the consent of both sides, the Tribunal decided to dispose of the Appeals at that stage. They directed M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. to pre-deposit a specified amount and instructed the adjudicating Commissioner to re-examine the case based on the new evidence, ensuring both parties are given a fair hearing.

5. The Appeals were allowed by way of remand, with the case to be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority in light of the new evidence presented during the Tribunal proceedings. The order emphasized the need for a fair hearing and examination of all evidence before reaching a decision.

In conclusion, the judgment allowed the Appeals by remanding the case back to the adjudicating Commissioner for a fresh decision, highlighting the importance of considering all evidence and providing a fair opportunity for both parties to present their case.