9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 540X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 praying for exemption from the pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 35,41,566/- and penalty amount of Rs. 3,50,000/-. The matter related to the non-fulfilment of the export obligation after the raw materials had been imported duty free. According to the Commissioner of Customs, the duty free import of brass scrap had been allowed to the appellants under Notification No. 30/97-Cus., dated 1-4-1997. This duty exemption to the imported raw material was subject to certain specified conditions. As the appellants failed to fulfil the conditions subject to which they had availed of the benefit of exemption notification, a duty of Rs. 35,41,566/- was demanded in the impugned Order-in-Original and a penalty of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l v. U.O.I., 1988 (35) E.L.T. 449 (Allahabad), wherein the High Court had observed that while disposing of the stay applications, the authorities should take realistic view. He also pleaded financial hardship. In reply, Shri Rajeev Tandon, SDR, submitted that it was a case of non-fulfilment of conditions subject to which the benefit of exemption from payment of customs duty was availed of by the appellants. At the time of import, the appellants were required to pay the appropriate customs duty which they did not pay. The exemption notification was conditional and once conditions are violated, the duty benefit was required to be paid back to the Revenue. In such a situation, it was the plea of the learned SDR that there could not be any gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , dated 18-4-1995. From this it is clear that on the date of visit i.e. 6-12-1995, the appellants had not fulfilled the export obligation in respect of this import. The learned SDR also referred to the Tribunal s decision in the case of Flistex Magnetics Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi, - 2001 (135) E.L.T. 857 (T) = 2001 (44) RLT 472 (CEGAT-T). The Tribunal had held that the benefit of Notification Nos. 339/85-Cus., dated 25-11-1985 and 133/94-Cus., dated 22-6-1994 relating to the Noida Export Processing Zone was not available on non-fulfilment of export obligations. On non-fulfilment of export obligations, the goods were liable to confiscation and the importer/exporter was liable to penal action and imposition of penalty. 3. We have carefully c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... export obligation or within such extended period as the said Asstt. Commissioner of Customs allowed. The exempted materials were not to be disposed of or utilised in any manner except for utilisation in discharge of export obligation or for replenishment of such materials and the materials so replenished were not to be sold or transferred to any other person. 5. It is not disputed and it is an admitted position that the various conditions as laid down in the Notification No. 30/97-Cus. had not been complied with. Accordingly, the benefit of exemption was rightly recoverable from the appellants. 6. Advance licence was issued to the appellants on 4-2-1998. It was on 4-6-1999 that the communication was addressed by the Asstt. Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
