9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) Whether CESTAT is correct in determining that the payment of interest is not pursuant to the announcement of Amnesty Scheme announced by the Government? (ii) Whether CESTAT is correct in holding that the Interest is refundable as no interest is payable by the assessee and its payment was as a result of coercion by the Department and not by opting for the Amnesty Scheme? 2. After hearing the parties, the Hon ble High Court, in its judgment dated 2-2-2005, remanded the matter to this Tribunal with the following observations :- Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and with their assistance, having perused the orders of the learned Excise authorities and the learned Tribunal, we are of the vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants and Shri Ganesh Havanur, the learned SDR for the Revenue. 4. In order to examine the issue, we briefly record the contentions of the appellants as urged by the learned Advocate and also as given in the Grounds of Appeal. (i) The appellant is neither the exporter of the goods nor a holder of the Value Based Advanced Licence (VABAL) under which the goods were exported. (ii) In view of the above fact the Amnesty Scheme announced by the Government on 3-1-1997 is not at all applicable to the appellant. (iii) Neither did the appellant import any materials under Notification No. 203/92-Cus., dated 19-5-1992. Hence, there is no question of the appellant violating any conditions of the said Notification. (iv) In view o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny goods under VABAL Scheme. Some of the exporters who purchased goods from the appellant exported the goods under VABAL Scheme to meet their export obligation. The appellant is in no way concerned with those exports. Hence, they have not violated any of the conditions of Notification 203/92-Cus. The appellant is also not a beneficiary under VABAL Scheme neither did he possess any DEEC Licence. (x) The learned Advocate invited our attention to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Dome Bell Investment (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut - 2000 (88) ECR 651 (Tribunal) wherein the Tribunal held that provisions of import policy about replenishment material cannot be read into Modvat Rules and inasmuch as there has been no violation of any of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... very clear that Notification 203/92-Cus. is applicable to an importer who imports goods under VABAL Licecne and is under an obligation to fulfill the export requirements as per the licence. In the present case, there is no allegation that the appellant held VABAL Licence. There is no evidence to show that the appellants themselves exported goods under the VABAL Scheme. The appellants have stated that they are only manufacturers of Bulk Drugs and sell their finished product to local purchasers and also to exporters. In these circumstances, there cannot be any violation of Notification 203/92-Cus. by the appellants who would not come under this Scheme at all. If the appellants had cleared goods to some exporters who had exported the goods und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
