2008 (4) TMI 157 - AT - Central Excise

Modification of order of HC & Tribunal sought for permitting the petitioner to follow the alternate remedy of deemed export (by supplying the goods to advance licence holders) quality of goods alleged to be deteriorating due to delay in export - there is no satisfactory explanation as to how the goods have been deteriorated in quality so as to negate further physical exports - applicants have not made out a case for invoking of the inherent powers of the Tribunal application dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of optical fibres and duty demand.
2. Revocation of release order for export.
3. Permission to supply seized goods as deemed exports.
4. Clarification/modification of Tribunal's order.

Issue 1: Confiscation of optical fibres and duty demand
The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of optical fibres manufactured in the E3 unit and reduced the fine subject to conditions for home consumption or export. The High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground of jurisdiction, stating that the issues related to the rate of duty and value. The Supreme Court directed the continuation of the interim stay granted by the High Court.

Issue 2: Revocation of release order for export
After paying the redemption fine and seeking clearance for export, the respondents initially released the seized stock for export but later revoked the order. The High Court held that there was no jurisdiction for revoking the release order and granted interim stay for exporting the goods as permitted by the Tribunal.

Issue 3: Permission to supply seized goods as deemed exports
The applicants sought permission to supply the deteriorated seized goods to advance authorization license holders for deemed exports, which was rejected by the respondents. The High Court dismissed the application seeking clarification of the stay order, stating that the Tribunal's order was explicit regarding duty waiver only upon physical export.

Issue 4: Clarification/modification of Tribunal's order
The High Court dismissed the application seeking clarification, stating that the Tribunal's order was clear on permitting physical export for duty waiver. The Tribunal held that the applicants failed to show grounds for invoking inherent powers to secure justice and dismissed the application.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of optical fibres, addressed the revocation of the release order for export, denied permission for supplying seized goods as deemed exports, and dismissed the application seeking clarification/modification of the Tribunal's order.