9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Stay applications dismissed without hearing in two cases, non-compliance of pre-deposit amount in the third case, jurisdiction over Export Oriented Unit (EOU), procedural irregularities in clearances to Domestic Tariff Area (DTA), duty on removals to DTA under Central Excise Law, violation of principles of natural justice in Commissioner (Appeals) decision. Analysis: The case involved three separate orders where stay applications and appeals were dismissed, with one case being dismissed for non-compliance of the pre-deposit amount. The appellants, who were 100% EOU licensed under the EOU scheme, were exporting cut fresh flowers to various destinations abroad. They cleared goods to Domestic Tariff Area without following prescribed procedures, claiming lack of guidance from Customs authorities at Mangalore port. The appellants argued that cut fresh flowers were not subject to duty under Central Excise Law. The consultant for the appellants relied on a previous case to argue that jurisdiction over an EOU lies with territorial officers where the unit is located, not the Customs House of importation. The department contended that a Special Officer in charge of EOU in the area had jurisdiction, and the Commissioner (Appeals) had jurisdiction over the entire state where the unit was situated. The department opposed staying the pre-deposit amount. The tribunal found that there was no duty on removals to DTA under Central Excise Law unless goods were permitted to be sold in DTA. They cited a Supreme Court case to support this position and noted that penalties and duties were invoked under the Customs Act, not Central Excise Law. The tribunal also observed a violation of natural justice in the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remanded the case for a fresh determination by the lower authorities to ensure compliance with procedural fairness. In conclusion, the tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and remanded the matter for re-determination of duty, if applicable, following the principles of natural justice. Both the appellants and the department were granted the freedom to present their case with full reliance on relevant material. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
|
