9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Verification of duty quantification for 5 items - Shortage explanation for other items - Allegation of time-barred show cause notice - Duty exemption for 100% EOUs - Proper utilization in export production - Penalty imposition Verification of duty quantification for 5 items: The appeal arose from a de novo order passed by the Commissioner following a remand order. The Commissioner considered the verification of 5 items with undisputed duty quantification. However, for other items, the appellants failed to explain the shortages satisfactorily. The Tribunal found that the duty exemption for 100% EOUs is subject to proper utilization in export production and safeguards to prevent misuse and customs revenue loss. The Commissioner's order regarding the duty demand on these items was upheld. Shortage explanation for other items: The appellants, who worked under the customs bond, could not provide a satisfactory explanation for the shortages of goods meant for duty-free import for export production. The Tribunal emphasized that the duty exemption for EOUs aims to promote export manufacturing and must be safeguarded against misuse. As the shortage remained unexplained and the units had a longer period to utilize imported goods, the time bar defense was not applicable. The Tribunal rejected the appellants' case and upheld the duty demand confirmed by the Commissioner. Allegation of time-barred show cause notice: The appellants argued that the show cause notice issued in 1989 was time-barred. However, the Tribunal ruled that the time bar defense does not apply when goods are under customs bond, and the units have an extended period to utilize imported goods. As such, the Tribunal did not find merit in the time-barred defense and upheld the Commissioner's decision. Duty exemption for 100% EOUs and proper utilization in export production: The Tribunal highlighted that the duty exemption for EOUs is a special dispensation to encourage export production by providing duty-free imported inputs. To prevent misuse and customs revenue loss, proper accounting of non-duty paid imported inputs and their utilization in export production is essential. The Tribunal emphasized the need to adhere to the scheme's safeguards and prevent EOUs from defrauding customs revenue. Penalty imposition: The Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh, considering the substantial duty amount involved. The Tribunal found the penalty reasonable and declined to reduce it, affirming the Commissioner's decision. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, and the duty demand and penalty were upheld by the Tribunal.
|
