9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 404 - AT - Central ExciseRecovery of duty alongwith interest - Advance licenses - Held that - It is also seen from the records that the Ministry of Commerce and Industry by letter No. 8/EOU/495/Prop/2005/5060 dated 27.10.2005 had informed the respondent herein that exports effected prior to 1.4.2000 needs no regularisation; and by letter 8/EOU-495/Prop/2005/5060 dated 27.10.2005 had informed the respondent herein that exports effected prior to 1.4.2000 needs no regularisation; and by letter 8/EOU/495/VSEZ/2006/4887 dated 14.08.2006 regularised the exports made post 1.4.2000 by the respondent from the third parties - the learned Commissioner was correct to hold that the proceedings initiated by the show-cause notice needs to be dropped - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Para 9.36 of Exim Policy 1997-2002 regarding export procedures. 2. Validity of Ministry of Commerce's ratification of exports. 3. Condonation of procedural infractions by Ministry of Commerce. 4. Eligibility for concessional rate of Excise Duty on goods manufactured from indigenous raw materials. 5. Regularization of exports made post 1.4.2000 by the respondent. 6. Sustenance of proceedings initiated by the show-cause notice. Interpretation of Para 9.36 of Exim Policy 1997-2002: The appeal involved a dispute over the interpretation of Para 9.36 of Exim Policy 1997-2002, which prohibited export through third parties. The appellant argued that the respondent violated this provision by exporting goods through job workers. The adjudicating authority initially issued a show-cause notice for recovery of duty and interest based on this violation. Validity of Ministry of Commerce's ratification of exports: The appellant contended that despite the Ministry of Commerce rejecting the respondent's application for condonation of violation procedures, the adjudicating authority erred in dropping the proceedings. However, the Ministry later ratified the exports made by the respondent, leading to a dispute over the validity of this ratification and its impact on the duty recovery proceedings. Condonation of procedural infractions by Ministry of Commerce: The Ministry of Commerce condoned the procedural infractions related to exports made from third-party premises, as confirmed in correspondence. This condonation raised questions about the sustainability of the duty recovery proceedings initiated by the show-cause notice, especially regarding the correctness of DTA sales and the charging of full customs duties on imports. Eligibility for concessional rate of Excise Duty: The appellant argued that the impugned goods, manufactured from indigenous raw materials, were eligible for a concessional rate of Excise Duty under Notification No. 8/97. The adjudicating authority cited relevant case laws to support the eligibility for the concessional rate, emphasizing that further duty demand was not warranted. Regularization of exports made post 1.4.2000: The Ministry of Commerce regularized the exports made by the respondent post 1.4.2000, indicating that certain exports did not require regularization. This regularization influenced the decision to drop the proceedings initiated by the show-cause notice, as confirmed by the learned Commissioner and upheld in the impugned order. Sustenance of proceedings initiated by the show-cause notice: Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, stating that the learned Commissioner's decision to drop the proceedings was correct and legally sound. The Tribunal found no contrary evidence presented by the Revenue to challenge the sustainability of the adjudicating authorities' findings. As a result, the appeal was rejected, affirming the correctness of the decision to drop further proceedings in the matter.
|
