9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Denial of benefit of Notification No. 206/76 for batteries imported for use in ground handling equipments of air-crafts for defense use. 2. Validity of certificate issued by Ministry of Defence. 3. Misuse of Modvat credit benefit. 4. Barred time for demands. 5. Violation of principles of natural justice. Analysis: 1. The appellants were required to pre-deposit a sum for hearing the appeals in the second round of litigation after the matter was reviewed by the Board and remanded for de novo consideration. The Commissioner confirmed the demand by denying the benefit of Notification No. 206/76 for batteries imported for defense use based on three grounds: batteries not forming part of ground handling equipments, invalidity of Ministry of Defence certificate, and misuse of Modvat credit benefit. 2. The Advocate argued that batteries indeed form part of ground handling equipments for defense use, supported by a Chennai Custom House Public Notification and valid Ministry of Defence certificate. He claimed that the Commissioner did not consider significant evidence and failed to offer an opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice. The authenticity of the certificate was questioned due to a legibility issue with the photocopy presented. 3. The Advocate further contended that demands were time-barred as all relevant information was furnished during imports in 1991, with no plea of financial hardships. On the contrary, the DR argued against the entitlement for exemption, citing insufficient certificates, unsatisfactory explanations regarding contracts, and misuse of Modvat credit. The Commissioner's detailed findings were highlighted, along with the absence of financial hardship pleas. 4. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellants' success in the first round but noted discrepancies in the Commissioner's subsequent view, emphasizing the lack of full opportunity given to prove the contract with the Ministry of Defence. Import timelines and unclear findings regarding the time bar were also pointed out. Considering the overall circumstances, the Tribunal found a strong prima facie case for granting waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery, ordering accordingly. 5. The judgment concluded by allowing either party to request early hearing due to the significant revenue involvement, ensuring prompt consideration.
|
