2015 (9) TMI 1311 - AT - Customs

Denial of DEPB credit - appellants have willfully obtained the DEPB by mis-declaration - Held that - Appellant had imported raw materials duty-free under Notification No. 32/97-Cus. which allowed such import for jobbing purpose. The job worker was required to export the final product to the overseas supplier of raw materials. In this process, it was open to the job worker to make a value addition to the extent of not less than 10% CIF value of the imported raw material. The Tribunal has held that if at all benefit of drawback/DEPB could not be denied to the importers if they are jobbing and exports made using such imports but the benefit of the notification is admissible subject to their having fulfilled the condition of achievement of value addition. - No reason to interfere with the order of the adjudicating authority. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Demand of duty by denying DEPB credit availed by the appellant.
- Interpretation of Notification No. 32/97-Cus. regarding duty-free imports and DEPB credit eligibility.
- Assessment of value addition and compliance with conditions for DEPB credit.
- Consideration of case laws and precedents in similar matters.

Analysis:
The case involved a company engaged in manufacturing finished leather and leather footwear, which imported goods for manufacturing shoes under Notification No.32/97-Cus. The Commissioner of Customs demanded duty from the appellants, alleging willful mis-declaration in availing DEPB credit during 1997-2002. The core issue was whether the appellants were entitled to DEPB credit for exports made under the notification and if the duty demand was justified.

The learned AR for Revenue argued that the DEPB claimed by the appellant covered the entire value of exported goods, contrary to eligibility limited to job charges and components. It was contended that claiming benefits like duty drawback and DEPB credit for goods manufactured from duty-free imports under the notification breached its conditions. The AR cited case laws to support the Revenue's stance.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the appellant had imported raw materials duty-free under the notification for jobbing purposes, requiring a minimum value addition of 10% CIF value of imported raw material for exports. The Tribunal emphasized that while importers engaging in jobbing and exports using such imports could not be denied drawback/DEPB benefits, compliance with value addition conditions was crucial. However, the Tribunal noted insufficient evidence of value addition fulfillment in the appellant's case, as Shipping Bills lacked references to imports and value addition as per the notification.

Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's order, rejecting the appellant's appeal. The decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the fulfillment of Notification No. 32/97-Cus. conditions, rather than delving into the correctness of DEPB benefits allowed. The judgment highlighted the importance of meeting statutory conditions for availing duty-related benefits and emphasized the need for clear documentation to substantiate claims under relevant notifications.