2018 (1) TMI 832 - AT - Customs

Validity of SCN - whether the appellants have rightly availed the benefit under N/N. 203/92-Cus against presenting Value Based Import Licence (VABAL) transferred in their favor? Held that - the licence was issued to some other manufacturers/exporters who have sold the licence to the appellant. Under such circumstances, under the Scheme of Customs Act, duty cannot be demanded from the appellant who is holding the Value Based Advance Licence as transferee - there is no allegation that the appellant or the original holder M/s Satnam Overseas Ltd, had availed modvat credit on any inputs in order to deny benefit of N/N. 203/1992 - reliance placed in the case of The show-cause notice is vague and non-maintainable - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Benefit under Notification No. 203/92-Cus availed by the appellants against VABAL transfer
- Alleged contravention of conditions of the notification
- Demand of duty, confiscation of goods, and penalty imposed by Customs department
- Adjudication of show-cause notice by Jt. Commissioner of Customs
- Appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequent rejection
- Maintainability of the show-cause notice
- Interpretation of conditions of Notification No. 203/92-Cus
- Application of precedent in similar cases

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai revolves around the issue of whether the appellants rightfully availed the benefit under Notification No. 203/92-Cus against the transfer of a Value Based Advance Licence (VABAL) in their favor. The appellants, a Small Scale Industry (S.S.I.) Unit engaged in manufacturing Hand Made Woolen Carpets, purchased the VABAL from the original license holder. The Customs department initiated proceedings against the appellants, alleging contravention of conditions of the notification due to the original license holder's export practices and the subsequent import by the appellants. The show-cause notice demanded duty payment, proposed confiscation of goods, and imposed a penalty. The Jt. Commissioner of Customs adjudicated the notice, confirming the duty demand and penalty. The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was rejected, emphasizing the fulfillment of conditions under the notification.

The appellant challenged the maintainability of the show-cause notice before the Tribunal, arguing that it lacked specificity and failed to prove the original license holder's availing of CENVAT Credit on inputs. The appellant contended that as their final product was excise duty exempt, there was no need for them to take CENVAT Credit. The Tribunal considered the arguments and cited a Supreme Court ruling emphasizing the Revenue's onus to prove the availing of Modvat credit. The Tribunal found that the duty demand from the appellant, as a transferee of the VABAL, was not sustainable under the Customs Act. Notably, there was no evidence that either the appellant or the original license holder had availed Modvat credit on inputs, thereby upholding the benefit of Notification 203/1992 for the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal deemed the show-cause notice vague and non-maintainable, aligning the decision with the Supreme Court precedent. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential relief to the appellants in accordance with the law. The ruling emphasized the importance of fulfilling conditions under notifications and the burden of proof on the Revenue in cases involving duty demands and penalties. The application of legal precedents played a crucial role in determining the outcome of the appeal before the Tribunal.