2008 (5) TMI 246 - AT - Customs

Non fulfillment of export obligation period extended by Development commissioner for fulfillment of export obligation application dismissed for non-compliance of pre-deposit is required to be re-stored because in such situation assessee is not required to pre-deposit any amounts further, demands are premature therefore, matter is remanded to the Original Authority for de novo - de novo proceedings have to commence only after the expiry of the period granted to the appellants

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for recall of final orders due to non-compliance with pre-deposit requirement.
2. Extension of time granted by Development Commissioner for export obligations.
3. Request for remand to Original Authority based on cited judgments.

Issue 1:
The appellants filed an application for the recall of final orders dismissing their appeals for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement. The Tribunal had directed the appellants to predeposit a specific amount, which was not complied with, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. However, subsequent developments, including an extension of time granted by the Development Commissioner for completing export obligations, prompted the appellants to seek a recall of the dismissal order. The appellants argued that since they had started functioning under the license and were required to comply with its terms by a specified date, the pre-deposit requirement should not apply. The Tribunal considered these arguments and decided to recall the final orders, allowing the appeals to be restored to their original numbers.

Issue 2:
The Tribunal examined the order issued by the Development Commissioner, which granted the appellants an extension of time to fulfill their export obligations until the end of May 2009. In light of this extension, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants were no longer required to predeposit the amounts previously directed. Consequently, the Tribunal recalled the final orders that had dismissed the appeals for non-deposit and restored the appeals to their original numbers. The application for restoration was allowed based on the extension granted by the Development Commissioner.

Issue 3:
The appellants requested that the matter be remanded to the Original Authority for de novo proceedings, with a condition that consideration should only occur if the appellants fail to comply with the new terms set by the Development Commissioner. The appellants relied on several judgments to support their argument that demands should not be confirmed when the time for complying with export obligations is extended by the Development Commissioner. The Tribunal considered these judgments and agreed with the appellants' position. It held that since the Development Commissioner had accepted the plea for further time to comply with export terms, the confirmation of demands was not justified. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Original Authority for de novo proceedings, to be initiated only after the expiry of the extended period granted to the appellants. The Tribunal allowed the appeals by remand, following the principles of natural justice.

This judgment highlights the importance of compliance with pre-deposit requirements, the impact of extensions granted by authorities on legal proceedings, and the need for adherence to export obligations under specific schemes. The Tribunal's decision to recall the dismissal orders and remand the matter for de novo proceedings demonstrates a balanced approach to addressing the issues raised by the appellants.