9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty - Denial of concession under Customs Notification No. 160/92 - Differential duty demand, confiscation of goods, recovery of interest, and penalty - Extension of export obligation period - Retrospective amendment to Notification No. 160/92 Waiver of Pre-deposit of Duty and Penalty: The Appellate Tribunal, after hearing both sides, decided to proceed with the appeal without the requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. The appellants, manufacturers of hermetically sealed compressors, were initially known as Shriram Refrigeration Industry Limited and had entered into a joint venture agreement with a US company. The issue arose when they failed to fulfill the export obligation despite importing capital goods against the EPCG license. The Commissioner of Customs confirmed the differential duty demand, confiscated goods, and imposed penalties. However, the Tribunal, considering the retrospective effect of an amendment by the Finance Act, 2001 to Notification No. 160/92, found the duty demand and penalty unsustainable, thereby setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. Extension of Export Obligation Period: The Ministry of Commerce extended the period for fulfilling the export obligation up to 31-3-2002. The appellants applied for an extension, which was granted by the DGFT. Subsequently, the Finance Act, 2001 introduced a retrospective amendment to Notification No. 160/92, specifying conditions for the extension of the export obligation period. Despite fulfilling the export obligation within the extended period and informing the adjudicating authority, the Commissioner held that the notification condition was violated. However, the Tribunal, considering the retrospective nature of the amendment, concluded that the duty demand, penalty, and confiscation were not sustainable. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. Denial of Concession under Customs Notification No. 160/92: The appellants were granted an extension to fulfill the export obligation, which was confirmed by the DGFT. The Commissioner, however, held that the condition of the notification was violated, leading to the confirmation of the duty demand, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalties. Despite the appellants fulfilling the export obligation within the extended period and the retrospective effect of the amendment by the Finance Act, 2001, the Commissioner's decision was overturned by the Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the duty demand, penalty, and confiscation, ultimately allowing the appeal. Retrospective Amendment to Notification No. 160/92: The Finance Act, 2001 introduced a retrospective amendment to Notification No. 160/92, specifying conditions for extending the period to fulfill the export obligation. The Tribunal noted that the extension of the export obligation period was with retrospective effect. Despite the appellants fulfilling the obligation within the extended period and bringing this to the Commissioner's attention, the duty demand, penalty, and confiscation were deemed unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
|
