9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 84 - AT - CustomsNon-imposition of redemption fine and penalty on the respondent - Zero Duty EPCG Authorization - failure to fulfill the export obligation within a block of 4 years (under wrong impression) - HELD THAT - In this case no doubt the respondent in terms of Notification, has failed to fulfill the export obligation within a block of 4 years, the respondent is required to pay 50% of duty along with interest @ 15% within 30 days from the expiry of each block, but the respondent was not aware of this condition as they were under an impression that they were required to fulfill the export obligation within a period of 6 years - But, as and when investigation started the respondent immediately paid duty and interest. Further, as per the condition of the Notification, the appellant is required to pay duty along with interest. In that circumstances, the adjudicating authority has rightly refrained from imposing redemption fine and penalty on the respondent. As the respondent has complied with the condition of the Notification, therefore, there are no infirmity in the impugned order. Appeal filed by Revenue dismissed.
Issues:
The appeal concerns the imposition of redemption fine and penalty on the respondent by the revenue. Summary: The respondent obtained Zero Duty EPCG Authorization and was required to fulfill export obligations within specified periods. The Handbook of Procedures outlined the proportion of minimum export obligations to be met over different blocks of years. Failure to fulfill obligations within a block required payment of duty and interest. The respondent, unaware of this requirement, paid duty and interest upon investigation by DRI. The revenue sought to impose redemption fine and penalty, arguing that the respondent violated the notification conditions. However, the respondent contended that they fulfilled obligations upon becoming aware and therefore redemption fine was not warranted. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, noting that the respondent promptly paid duty and interest upon investigation, thus complying with the notification conditions. Consequently, the appeal by the revenue was dismissed. Judges: - HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) - HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV TANDON, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
|
