9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to deposit 50% of the adjudged duty inspite of holding that the basic issue is as to whether the conditions prescribed in the exemption Notification No.21/2002-Cus, for availing full exemption from Customs duty would also be applicable, if the goods produced in India are supplied against International Competitive Bidding. The second question raised by learned counsel for the appellant is as to whether the CESAT was justified in denying the benefit of exemption of Central Excise duty in terms of Notification No.6 of 2006 dated 01.03.2006, merely on the ground of procedural lapse which was being capable of being cured subsequently, though there was no procedural lapse in the instant case and thirdly on the ground whether the exemption from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, this exemption is subject to the condition that like goods if imported into India are fully exempt from the customs duty. The same goods if imported into India would be exempt from the Customs duty under exemption Notification No.21/2002-Cus subject to certain conditions as prescribed in the Notification One of the conditions is the production of certificate before the Assistant/ Deputy Commissioner of Customs, issued by the designated authority the Directorate General of Hydro Carbons. WE are of the prima facie view that admittedly, the certificate has not been produced and instead, a certificate by M/s Cairn Energy India Pvt. Ltd. has been furnished which prima facie cannot be termed as designated authority authorized to issue certific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertificate was not produced and that certificate of M/s Cairn Energy India Pvt. Ltd. was furnished. It is not the case of appellant that either M/s Cairn Energy India Pvt. Ltd. was issued the certificate by the Director General of Hydro Carbons, or that the appellant has applied for such certificate. In the circumstances, we find that the arguments that non-obtaining of the certificate was only a procedural lapse, is not correct. In Commissioner of Cus. (Imports), Mumbai v. Tullow India Operations Ltd., 2005 (189) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) a similar question has arisen. The Supreme Court found that non-production of the certificate is a procedural lapse, on the ground that ONGC had applied for grant of exemption certificate to the Director Genera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered in several cases. It is to be noted that in such matters though discretion is available, the same has to be exercised judicially. The applicable principles have been set out succinctly in Silliguri Municipality and Ors. v. Amalendu Das and Ors. (AIR 1984 SC 653) and M/s Samarias Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. S. Samuel and Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 61) and Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd. (AIR 1985 SC 330). It is true that on merely establishing a prima facie case, interim order of protection should not be passed. But if on a cursory glance it appears that the demand raised has no leg to stand, it would be undesirable to require the assessee to pay full or substantive part of the demand. Petitions for stay should not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
