2018 (2) TMI 959 - AT - Customs

Concessional rate of duty - N/N. 97/04 dated 17.9.2004 - non-fulfillment of condition of Notification to earn foreign exchange within eight years from the date of issue of license - Held that - admittedly, in the present case, the appellant has not been able to furnish the EODC certificate showing the fulfillment of conditions of the Notification. In view of the non-submission of EODC certificate, appellant is not entitled to the benefit of N/N. 97/2004 - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against rejection of appeal and upholding of Order-in-Original regarding duty foregone under EPCG License.
2. Compliance with conditions of Notification No.97/04 dated 17.9.2004 for earning foreign exchange within stipulated period.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The appeal was filed against the rejection of appeal and confirmation of duty foregone under EPCG License. The appellant, M/s. Indore CNC Pvt. Ltd., imported capital goods under a concessional rate of duty but failed to comply with conditions to earn foreign exchange within the specified period. The Original Authority confirmed the duty amount, leading to the appeal before the Commissioner (A), who also rejected it. The impugned order was challenged in the present appeal.

Issue 2: The appellant argued that the impugned order was not sustainable as it did not consider facts and law properly. They claimed to have submitted relevant export documents to the licensing authority but did not receive a response or the EODC certificate. The appellant contended that the export obligation period mentioned in the EPCG Notification should not be a reason for denying benefits. On the other hand, the Respondent argued that the appellant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the Notification, specifically regarding earning foreign exchange within the stipulated period.

Upon hearing both parties and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the appellant had not submitted the EODC certificate to demonstrate compliance with the Notification's conditions. As the appellant failed to furnish this certificate, they were deemed ineligible for the benefits of Notification No.97/2004. Consequently, the impugned order was upheld, dismissing the appellant's appeal. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's non-submission of the EODC certificate was crucial in determining their entitlement to the Notification's benefits. The decision was pronounced in open court on 29/12/2017.