9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Violation of duty exemption conditions under Notification No. 339/85 and 5/86 - Confiscation of goods, imposition of penalties. Analysis: The case involved M/s. Amafh Fashions, eligible for duty exemption under Notifications 339/85 and 5/86 for import and procurement of goods for manufacturing and export. The Department alleged violation of conditions due to non-utilization of duty-free goods, leading to a show cause notice proposing recovery of customs and central excise duty, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalties. The adjudicating authority passed an order confiscating non-duty paid goods and imposing penalties on both appellants. The appellants contended they fulfilled export obligations by exporting goods in 1994-95, achieving a value addition of 86.47%. However, the Commissioner did not address this crucial submission. The case was remanded to the Commissioner to reconsider the export obligation fulfillment claim and assess the benefit of duty exemption on poly texturised yarn. The penalty imposed on M/s. Amafh Fashions under the Customs Act was set aside, while the penalty on appellant No. 2 was left open for the Commissioner's decision. The letter of approval issued to M/s. Amafh Fashions outlined export obligations based on quantity and value addition requirements. The appellants argued they met export obligations by exporting goods and achieving significant value addition, supported by evidence submitted with their reply to the show cause notice. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication by the Commissioner, who was directed to provide a fair opportunity for the appellants to present their case in person before issuing new orders. In conclusion, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision by the Commissioner. The appeals were allowed by remand, emphasizing the importance of considering the appellants' submissions regarding export obligation fulfillment and duty exemption benefits on specific goods. The Commissioner was instructed to conduct a de novo adjudication, ensuring a fair hearing for the appellants before issuing new orders.
|
