2023 (8) TMI 1041 - AT - Central Excise

100% EOU - non-fulfilment of export obligation - Failure to achieve the minimum NFEP under 6.5 of Chapter 6 of Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-2009, 6.10.1 of Hand Book Procedure Volume I of Foreign Trade Policy 2004-09 - wrong availment of exemption in contravention of provisions of N/N.1/95-CE dated 04.01.1995, N/N.22/03-CE dated 31.03.2003 as amended by N/N.53-97-Cus dated 03.06.1997 and N/N.52/2003-Cus dated 31.03.2003 as amended read with Para 6.5 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009. HELD THAT - Without considering the proceedings taken by the Development Commissioner and the payment of duty by the respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, opted for existing from EOU Scheme to EPCG Scheme in terms of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-09 on 07.02.2007 and after payment of duty, no dues certificate was issued. The show-cause notice was issued and the adjudicating authority has gone into this case and development taken before the Development Commissioner as well as the payment of duty by the respondent at the time of opting out from EOU Scheme to EPCG Scheme and the adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings against the respondent. The fact is further noted that after adjudication, the respondent has fulfilled their export obligation and obtained for EODC on 09.03.2018. Thus, no proceedings are sustainable against the respondent - appeal filed by Revenue dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The appeal against the impugned order dropping proceedings, fulfillment of export obligation, and issuance of Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC).

Summary:
The case involved proceedings initiated against a 100% EOU for wrong availment of exemption. The respondent, a Public Sector Undertaking, took over another company and applied to exit from EOU Scheme to EPCG Scheme due to unfulfilled export obligations. After payment of duty and issuance of no dues certificate, the EOU ceased to exist. Subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued for duty recovery, but proceedings were dropped post-adjudication. The Revenue contended that the order should be set aside due to unfulfilled export obligations. However, the respondent fulfilled their export obligation post-adjudication and obtained an EODC. The Tribunal noted the actions taken by the Development Commissioner and the payment of duty by the respondent, leading to the dropping of proceedings. Considering the fulfillment of export obligations and issuance of EODC, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and disposed of the respondent's Cross Objection accordingly.