2007 (11) TMI 226 - AT - Customs

Demand raised on appellant (transferor of advance license) on the ground that the condition of Not. 203/92 as regards non-availment of Credit in respect of input used in their exported product, don t stands fulfilled held that even if the Credit was available, the same was reversed by the said manufacturer, hence benefit of notification not deniable to appeallant in case of transfer of license person who is transferee is only liable to pay duty because he has actually imported the goods

Summary

Issues: Duty liability on transfer of advance licenses, availment of Modvat credit by the merchant manufacturer.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Duty liability on transfer of advance licenses
The appellant, M/s Goodwill Clothing Co., transferred advance licenses to M/s Verma Chemicals, who imported goods under the same. Show Cause Notices were issued against the appellant for duty demand due to alleged non-fulfillment of conditions of Notification No. 203/92. The appellant contended that as they were not the importer and had transferred the licenses after fulfilling export obligations, duty liability, if any, should rest on the actual importer. The appellant relied on a Bombay High Court decision stating that duty could be recovered from the transferees of advance licenses who imported the goods. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, citing the law declared by the High Court, and held that the duty, if applicable, should be recovered from M/s Verma Chemicals, the importer, not the appellant.

Issue 2: Availment of Modvat credit by the merchant manufacturer
The Revenue alleged that the merchant manufacturer, M/s Chetna Polytex (P) Ltd., availed Modvat credit on inputs used in exported goods, which was not declared by the appellant at the time of export. However, the Tribunal found no concrete evidence to support this claim. The Revenue's case was based on a letter from the Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise, which did not establish a clear correlation between the exports made and the Modvat credit availed by the manufacturer. The letter mentioned that even if Modvat credit was available, it was reversed by the manufacturer. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument and ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that there was no merit in denying the benefit of the notification based on the alleged availment of Modvat credit.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, providing consequential relief.