2014 (11) TMI 953 - AT - Customs

Waiver of pre deposit - benefit of Notification No. 94/96-Cus - Held that - If the assessee had paid Central Excise duty instead of fulfilling the obligation under Notification No. 158/95-Cus dated 12.11.1995, no further action is needed since the appellant can claim the benefit of Notification No. 94/96 as an alternative to Notification No. 158/95-Cus. The case before us is somewhat similar except for the fact that the appellant has not paid Central Excise duty but is seeking approval to do so. At this stage, since the issue is covered by precedent Tribunal s decision 2007 (2) TMI 451 - CESTAT, BANGALORE , we consider that if the appellant deposits the amount of Central Excise duty payable by them in accordance with Notification No. 94/96-Cus with interest, that would be sufficient for the purpose of hearing the appeal. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to deposit the entire duty plus interest payable by them. - Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues: Importation under Notification No. 158/95-Cus, failure to re-export within stipulated time, demand for duty payment, challenge before Commissioner (Appeals), consideration of benefit under Notification No. 94/96-Cus, Tribunal's decision in a similar case, requirement of Central Excise duty payment, direction for depositing duty plus interest, enforcement of Bank Guarantee, compliance timeline, waiver of pre-deposit requirement, stay against recovery.

Analysis:

The appellant imported Frozen Cooked P & D tail-off salad shrimps under Notification No. 158/95-Cus, allowing reprocess and re-export within 6 months. Despite executing a bond, the appellant failed to meet the re-export condition, leading to duty demand of &8377; 9,95,584/- with interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter for reassessment considering the benefit of Notification No. 94/96-Cus, enabling re-import of goods exported on payment of Excise duty. However, the original authority upheld the duty demand, prompting the appellant's appeal.

In a similar case, the Tribunal ruled that if Central Excise duty is paid instead of complying with Notification No. 158/95-Cus, the benefit of Notification No. 94/96-Cus can be claimed. Although the appellant hadn't paid Central Excise duty, seeking approval to do so, the Tribunal directed depositing the duty plus interest to proceed with the appeal. The appellant was instructed to comply within a specified timeline, with enforcement of Bank Guarantee for recovery by the department.

The appellant was granted a waiver of pre-deposit requirements, with a stay against recovery during the appeal's pendency. Compliance with depositing the duty plus interest or enforcement of Bank Guarantee was mandated, with a deadline set for balance dues payment. The Tribunal's decision aimed at ensuring duty payment while allowing the appeal process to continue, balancing the interests of the appellant and the department.