9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The issue involved in this case is whether relief under Section 129E was impermissible and if the circular relied upon was in conflict with the CENVAT and duty drawback scheme and provisions of the Act and Rules applicable. Judgment Details: Issue 1: Relief under Section 129E and Interpretation of Circular The appellant, a merchant exporter, claimed benefit under a circular for relief of set off of the duty component available through the prevalent duty drawback scheme. The Tribunal held that the circular was contrary to the statute and relief could only be granted to the extent of drawback on customs, not excise duty. The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in not giving primacy to the circular and that the order was contrary to the circular, causing financial hardship. The Court noted that the appellant had arranged its affairs based on the circular and had not evaded duty payment. The Court found the Tribunal's view plausible but favored the appellant due to the circular's interpretation. Considering past favorable decisions and to serve justice, the Court ordered the appellant to deposit 30% of the duty payable instead of the 100% directed by the Tribunal, with adjustment of the amount already paid. Issue 2: Payment of Duty and Security The Court partially allowed the appeal, directing the appellant to deposit 30% of the duty payable within 6 weeks, excluding interest and duty, while furnishing security to the Assessing Officer to the satisfaction, excluding a bank guarantee. This judgment addressed the conflict between the circular providing relief under Section 129E and the Tribunal's interpretation, ultimately granting partial relief to the appellant based on the circumstances and past favorable decisions.
|
