2005 (10) TMI 200 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to confirmation of demands by Commissioner of Customs based on violation of EPCG Licence and relevant Notification No. 29/97-Cus.

Analysis:
The appellants challenged the confirmation of demands by the Commissioner of Customs, arguing a violation of the conditions of the EPCG Licence and Notification No. 29/97-Cus. The appellants imported Capital Goods and were obligated to export final products as per the licence terms. However, they failed to comply, leading to the confirmation of duty amounts. The appellants contended that they had applied for an extension of the licensing period to the DGFT, Bangalore, and the application was pending. Despite bringing this to the Commissioner's attention, the decision was made, allegedly breaching Principles of Natural Justice.

The learned Counsel highlighted that post the order, they received a letter from JDGFT, Bangalore, amending the licence and extending the export obligation period. Citing a similar case precedent, Torus India Ltd. v. CC, Chennai, where demands were set aside as premature under comparable circumstances, the Counsel argued for setting aside the demands in this case.

Upon careful consideration, it was observed that the appellant had requested to keep the matter pending until their obligation was reviewed. However, the Commissioner proceeded with the decision. Subsequently, JDGFT informed the appellants about the extension of the export obligation period in an amendment to the licence. This extension was in line with the Handbook of Procedures 2004-2009. Consequently, the confirmation of demands was deemed premature and set aside. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was overturned.

The judgment was pronounced in open court following the conclusion of the hearing.