2016 (1) TMI 8 - AT - Customs

Waiver of pre deposit - Demand of differential duty - EPCG Scheme - Held that - EPCG scheme under which the car was imported has time till 2018, that is for fulfilling the export obligations as committed by the appellant. Be that as it may, it is undisputed that the car imported is registered in the name of main appellant who is in the hospitality business. It is also seen from the records that they have been showing revenue accrued in foreign exchange earned by them towards the export obligations committed to the government of India. We also would like to record that in an identical issue, in the case of M/s. Goldfinch Hotels Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (6) TMI 185 - CESTAT MUMBAI , this bench has taken a view which is in favour of the appellant. In our view, as long as the export obligations as committed are met prima facie appellants have made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts in question in these stay petitions - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues: Stay petitions for waiver of pre-deposit of differential duty, penalties under EPCG scheme.

Analysis:
1. Issue of Compliance with EPCG Scheme: The main appellant imported a car under the EPCG scheme, but the revenue authorities alleged improper benefit availed. The adjudicating authority confirmed a show cause notice for customs duty demand, interest, and penalties. The advocate argued that the appellant complied with EPCG scheme conditions, used the car for transporting tourists, and had time until 2018 to fulfill obligations. A bank guarantee of Rs. 50 lakhs was executed for provisional release of the car, still active, and considered sufficient for hearing and disposing the appeals on merits.

2. Contentions of the Departmental Representative: The Departmental Representative supported the lower authority's findings, suggesting the appellants should make deposits as a condition for hearing and disposing the appeals.

3. Judicial Analysis and Precedent: The Tribunal noted the EPCG scheme's validity until 2018 for fulfilling export obligations. Despite the car being in the main appellant's name in the hospitality business, revenue was shown in foreign exchange for committed export obligations. Referring to a similar case involving M/s. Goldfinch Hotels Pvt. Ltd., where a favorable view was taken, the Tribunal held that as long as export obligations are met, the appellants established a case for waiver of pre-deposit. Consequently, the applications for waiver were allowed, and recovery stayed pending appeal disposal.