2012 (10) TMI 41 - CGOVT - Customs

Demand 100% E.O.U - alleged that dispatching of finished goods, unfinished goods and duty free raw-materials by the 100% E.O.U. to their group companies in DTA with the intention and for the purpose of (claimed) illegal/inadmissible Drawback Held that - Activities were done without obtaining proper permission from the jurisdictional (Customs) authorities with the help of other DTA Units - there were indeed specific checkings and investigations by the departmental officers under proper authority of law - contravention of simple (footnote) declaration can result in denial of consequential benefit - Revision Applications are thus rejected Time bar - DBK amounts claimed and sanctioned in 1996-1997 the original Show Cause Notice was issued on 18-7-2001 - applicants herein are contesting that the addendums/corrigendum letters issued thereafter in connection with the above Show Cause Notice should be taken as a fresh Show Cause Notice and if computed from last addendum dated 2-5-2002 the issued Show Cause Notice is Time barred Held that - Government, therefore takes up the very initial Show Cause Notice or issued date as the relevant date and rest of addendums/corrigendum letter as precise details clearly pointing out the relevant data/limits/scopes of this case proceedings which have already stood commenced - Show Cause Notice dated 18-7-2001 was issued within extended time of 5 years and as such Show Cause Notice can not be treated as time barred

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Time Limitation/Time Bar
2. Legality and Sustainability of Charges/Contraventions

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Time Limitation/Time Bar:

The applicants argued that the entire demand was hit by limitation/time bar since the drawback involved had been claimed and sanctioned during 1996-97, but the original show cause notice was issued only on 18-7-2001. They contended that the addendums/corrigendum letters issued later should be considered as fresh show cause notices, making the proceedings time-barred. The Government rejected this plea, stating that treating further letters/communications as fresh notices would render the term "Addendum/Corrigendum" meaningless. The initial show cause notice dated 18-7-2001 was issued within the extended time of five years and could not be considered time-barred. Therefore, the Government upheld the initial show cause notice as valid.

2. Legality and Sustainability of Charges/Contraventions:

A. Dispatching of Goods and Claiming Illegal Drawback:

The applicants were accused of dispatching finished goods, unfinished goods, and duty-free raw materials by the 100% EOU to their group companies in DTA, claiming illegal/inadmissible drawback. They argued that the resumed challans were for internal accounting purposes and should be treated as redundant, and that the movement of goods did not require prior permission. They also claimed that any non-execution of bond/back guarantee was due to ignorance and should be considered a procedural lapse. Additionally, they argued that since they had no pending export obligations and their unit was under the department's full physical control, they should not be held responsible for any contraventions.

The Government found that the lower authorities had based their allegations and conclusions on legally admissible documents and records, such as delivery challans, consigner/consignee names, and statements made under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicants failed to produce any documentary or otherwise evidence to establish any part of the investigation as false or wrong in law. The Government emphasized that the statutory provisions must be strictly followed to maintain the integrity of the system, as stressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITC and Paper Product cases. The lack of prior permission and proper accounting and monitoring system for the movement of job work goods between DTA Units and EOU was a significant contravention.

B. Penalties and Confiscation:

The Government upheld the penalties and confiscation imposed by the lower authorities, noting that the applicants' interpretation of statutory provisions and their assumption of procedural lapses were not legally admissible. The Government found the lower authorities' orders to be within the authority of law and in conformity with the detailed findings and conclusions made for the contraventions of mandatory bindings of governing Section/Rules and regulations.

Conclusion:

The Government upheld the impugned Order-in-Appeal as perfectly legal and proper, rejecting the revision applications for being devoid of merits. The detailed findings and conclusions of the lower authorities were found to be legally sustainable, and the penalties and confiscation imposed were upheld. The Government emphasized the importance of following statutory provisions and maintaining proper accounting and monitoring systems to ensure the rightful granting of benefits to exporters.