9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t exporter. They imported materials under DEEC scheme. The materials so imported were cleared without payment of customs duty as provided under Notification No. 159/90-Cus., dated 30-3-1990. The goods were imported as replenishment in view of exports already undertaken and the appellants were not entitled to sell the goods in view of the provisions contained in para 250(2) of EXIM Policy. Under the policy, if the exported goods had availed themselves of Modvat facility in respect of inputs used in their production, the goods imported by way of replenishment could not be sold. The appellants had also bound themselves to the Customs Authorities to this effect. Being merchant exporters, the appellant did not have facility to manufacture. Manuf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in support of this contention. It has also been submitted that, if at all, demand is to be made on the appellant, it should be restricted to recovery of the Modvat claimed by the supporting manufacturer with regard to the inputs used in the manufacture of the export goods and not customs duty in respect of the imported replenishment materials. 4. As against the aforesaid contentions on behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted by the Learned DR that the liability of the importer to pay duty in the event of violation of DEEC scheme remains settled by the decision of the Orissa High Court reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 349. Learned DR submitted that in this case, the High Court held that goods imported duty free under the DEEC scheme wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on Form-C. The ld. DR also submitted that the appellant s request for recovery of Modvat credit availed on the raw materials by the supporting manufacturer can not also be accepted since the Amnesty scheme permitting that was in force only till January, 1991. DR submitted that the import of the goods in question had taken place much prior to the Amnesty scheme, show cause notice had been issued to the appellant for recovery of the duty and the case was pending during the currency of Amnesty scheme. The appellant, however, chose not to opt for this scheme. Since scheme has subsequently lapsed, the DR contended, the same is not available to the appellant. 5. It is clear from the record of this case that the duty free clearance of the rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been correctly pointed out by the ld. DR, the provisions of the Sales Tax Act relating to sale of goods among dealers against Form C and the provisions under the DEEC scheme for duty free imports of raw materials are entirely different. That judgment has, therefore, no relevance to the present dispute. The position with regard to duty free imports under DEEC scheme remains settled by the judgment of the Orissa High Court which has been relied upon by the revenue and the decision of the Apex Court in Sheshank Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [1996 (88) E.L.T. 626 (S.C.)]. Demand of duty in respect of goods imported duty free under DEEC scheme for violation of the conditions of exemption is clearly legal. 6. In view of what has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
