9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessed provisionally and the goods were released upon execution of Bond and Bank Guarantees amounting to Rs. 11,79,700/- and Rs. 16,29,300/-. As per the condition of the said Licence, the applicant was under obligation to export 50% of de-oiled cake worth US $ 31,02,492 i.e. 4 times the CIF value of the capital goods imported by the applicant on FOB basis. As per conditions of the policy the export obligation for the first year was Nil. However the applicant had to fulfill 10% of the export obligation in the second year, 20% in the third year and balance 70% in the fourth and fifth block years from the date of issue of licence. 3. The applicant failed to fulfil the export obligation of 10% in the second year. Accordingly a Show Cause Notice vide F. No. S/40-EPCG-23/95 GR.6 dated 16-10-1997 was issued demanding a duty of Rs. 5,78,296/- and interest @ 24% per annum in terms of the conditions of Notification No. 110/95-Cus., dated 5-6-1995. 3.1. The aforesaid Show Cause Notice was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, E.P.C.G., Mumbai vide Order-in-Original No. 25/98/SLG Gr.6 dated 20-11-97 confirming the demand of Rs. 5,78,296/- besides levying interest. Aggriev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further directed the applicant to pay the duty of Rs. 29,73,963/- (balance saved after adjustment of the amounts realised under Bank Guarantees) along with interest on the entire duty saved. The applicant filed application for settlement before the Commission on 27-12-2004 under Section 127B of the Act for settlement of the case covered by the three Cause Notices (referred supra) and also the demand letter dated 24-9-2004 admitting the entire duty demand of Rs. 57,82,963/- saved on the total imports made under the EPCG licence dated 28-7-1995. 9. The admission hearing of the case was first held on 16-3-2005. The Bench during the hearing informed the ld. Advocate representing the applicant that unless CESTAT (earlier known as CEGAT) allows the withdrawal of the appeal pending before them, the application for settlement will be premature. On the request of the ld. Advocate the Commission vide Interim Order No. 20/2005-Cus., dated 20-4-2005 adjourned the case. 10. The CESTAT vide Order No. A/312/WZB/2005-CII (M/384/ WZB/2005-CII) dated 26-4-2005 have dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant (referred in para No. 3.1 aforesaid) as withdrawn. 11. The next hearing for admissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvolved when such duty liability is being paid for non-fulfilment of the conditions of the said notification. The Revenue have further opposed grant of immunities to the applicant in case the application is admitted by the Commission. 14. We have gone through the records of the case and the contentions raised by the ld. Advocate during the course of hearing and those made in the written reply dated 13-7-2005 and also the written submissions made by the Revenue. The Revenue have raised the objection for admission of the case on the ground that there is no additional disclosure made by the applicant. On this objection we observe that this issue has been dealt with at length in Interim Order No. 4A/2001-Cus., dated 27-8-2001 [2001 (133) E.L.T. 495 (Sett. Comm.)] passed by this Bench in the case of M/s. Bell Granito Ceramica Ltd., Baroda wherein it was held that such cases were within the purview of the Commission and were entertainable under Sections 127A and 127B of the Act. Further, the Commission is regularly entertaining such cases. The Revenue has not been able to bring on record any judgment questioning or holding the jurisdiction of the Commission as barred/invalid over such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd powers of the Settlement Commission relating to grant of immunity from interest, without going into the provisions of the Act. The Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s. Mahendra Petrochemicals Ltd., cited supra by the ld. Advocate have not at all gone into the question of granting immunity from interest by the Commission inasmuch as the issue before them was altogether different i.e. maintainability of the application on the basis of a Show Cause Notice issued by the DGFT. 17. This Bench in the case of M/s. Saudagar Exports in Final Order No. 24/Cus./2005, dated 30-6-2005 have dealt with the aforesaid decision of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in greater details and have followed the ratio thereof. In view of the fact that the ld. Advocate has not brought to the notice of the Bench any decision contrary to the order passed by the Hon ble Calcutta High Court, judicial discipline and prudence demands that such decision ought to be followed by the quasi judicial authorities even though the decision is of an Hon ble High Court of judicature of some other State. The ld. Advocate has made the written prayer that if the Commission is not fully satisfied with the submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
