1999 (3) TMI 380 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Disposal of main appeals during stay applications hearing.
2. Allegation of availing Modvat credit leading to denial of benefits under Notification 203/92-Cus.
3. Lack of contest by exporters in response to show cause notice.
4. Examination of evidence regarding Modvat credit availed.
5. Conversion of value-based advance license to quantity-based advance license.
6. Remand of cases to jurisdictional Commissioner for re-examination.

Issue 1 - Disposal of main appeals during stay applications hearing:
During the hearing of stay applications, both sides agreed to dispose of the main appeals, as the appeals were filed by the same appellants with identical grounds. The Tribunal proceeded to dispose of both appeals through a common order.

Issue 2 - Allegation of availing Modvat credit leading to denial of benefits under Notification 203/92-Cus:
The appellants were alleged to have availed Modvat credit, contrary to the declaration made in the shipping bills for goods exported. The Commissioner confirmed the demand based on this allegation, as the exporters did not contest the claim or participate in the hearing.

Issue 3 - Lack of contest by exporters in response to show cause notice:
The exporters did not file any reply to the show cause notice or avail of opportunities to contest the allegations made against them, leading to the confirmation of demands by the Commissioner in their absence.

Issue 4 - Examination of evidence regarding Modvat credit availed:
The Tribunal examined the show cause notices and found a lack of evidence supporting the allegation of wrongly availing Modvat credit. The appellants provided documentary evidence indicating that either Modvat credit was not availed or was reversed in certain cases, challenging the basis of the demands.

Issue 5 - Conversion of value-based advance license to quantity-based advance license:
The appellants argued that their value-based advance license was converted into a quantity-based license retrospectively by an amendment. The Tribunal decided not to comment on this submission but left it to the Commissioner to consider while re-examining the cases.

Issue 6 - Remand of cases to jurisdictional Commissioner for re-examination:
Considering the lack of evidence in the show cause notices and the documentary evidence provided by the appellants, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the cases back to the jurisdictional Commissioner for a re-examination based on the documents presented. The stay applications were also disposed of accordingly.