9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onded by paying the amount in cash. In such factual matrix non-payment of interest through cash is not a ground to deny the benefit of the amnesty scheme. In fact such issue is not raised in the impugned order because it is seen that payments made in respect of 12 licenses have been accepted for qualifying for amnesty. Once the High Court has ordered that amnesty scheme is to be extended considering each licence on a case to case basis, it is for the appellant to appropriate the payments made by them towards the liability under each licence. The Hon. High Court has not ordered any particular order in which licenses have to be considered for eligibility for amnesty. There is no undue benefit that is being granted to the appellant by following the method suggested by the appellant. Such method is not against any of the conditions of the amnesty scheme or order of Hon. Madras High Court. We do not find any legal backing for the argument of Revenue that the licences have to be first arranged in the chronological order and then appropriations of amounts paid prior to 31-01-1997 are to be made. The date of the licence by itself may not decide chronology but the date of import of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rms of section 114 of Customs Act, 1962. 5. Also goods imported duty free appeared to be not eligible for exemption in terms of Customs Notification No.203/92-Cus and, accordingly, duty on the goods so released was demanded from the importers in terms of section 28(1) of Customs Act, 1962 and goods appeared liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the importers appeared liable for a penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 6. Therefore the importer, M/s. Shasun Drugs Chemicals, Pondicherry, were issued with two show cause notices dated 24.07.95 and 25.09.95 demanding duty of Rs. 8,46,13,967/- and Rs. 4,46,07,079/- along with interest at the applicable rate of 24%. Both SCNs proposed confiscation of the goods under section 111(o) of Customs Act 1962 and proposed a penalty on the importer under section 112(a) and 114(a) of Customs Act, 1962. 7. In the meanwhile it was noticed by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue that a large number of exporters availing benefit under the VABAL Scheme had also availed Input Stage duty relief from excise duties Credit in respect of the goods exported by them. The G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of clearance of input under VABAL from August, 1993 to 9.3.1995 and also debited an amount of Rs.19,22,371/- as interest on the above credit. Out of the amount of Rs.19,23,371/-, Rs.18,27,721/- was reversed on 31.1.1997 and the balance on 6.2.1997. 10. After further verification on 3.9.1997, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry issued certificate in terms of Scheme and the circular, certifying that the petitioner had reversed MODVAT credit of Rs.83,01,114/- and interest of Rs.20,80,304/-. 11. Subsequently, on 15.9.1997, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Pondicherry informed the petitioner that the reversal interest in RG23A Part II account was not in conformity with the circular dated 10.1.1997 and directed the petitioner to remit the interest by cash. The said direction was complied with by the petitioner on 16.10.1997 by making cash payment of Rs.20,85,305/-. Again, on 29.10.1997, the Asst. Commissioner, Central Excise, Pondicherry issued a revised certificate to the effect that the petitioner reversed MODVAT credit of Rs.83,01,114/- and interest of Rs.20,80,305/- in their RG 23A Part II account in respect of the export made under the VABAL sc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y taking into account the reversal of duty and interest by the petitioner as certified by the competent Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and proceed further thereupon, by allowing the writ petitions. Consequent to this order, the Commissioner of Customs has passed an adjudication order dt.7.10.05 quantifying the amount of customs duty to be paid by the appellant. Aggrieved by this order of the Commissioner, the appellant have filed this appeal before Tribunal. 15. After hearing both sides. We find that the dispute between the two sides with regard to quantification is as follows:- 15.1 The appellant proposed a calculation choosing 13 licences out of the 14 licences for which they claim that they had reversed Modvat credit and interest prior to 31.1.97. They concede that in respect of the remaining one VABAL, they had not fulfilled the conditions of the amnesty scheme and therefore they had to pay customs duty to the tune of Rs.38,48,418/-. This amount stands paid while complying with the stay order passed by Tribunal in this appeal. 15.2. On the other hand, Revenues stand is that appellant cannot choose the licence against which default has occurred. Revenue wants to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt is that the order of the Commissioner is based on logic and is in conformity with the High Court s order and therefore the impugned order may be confirmed. 18. We have considered the submissions on both sides. We find that if the appellants had paid about Rs.5 lakhs more as on 31.1.97,their entire liability under the 14 licences could have been discharged but for the issue that interest was paid through RG-23A account rather than through cash. The wording of the amnesty scheme was not very explicit that interest could not be paid by reversal of credit. When the payments were reported to the jurisdictional officers they did not take any immediate objection to such payment but took objection almost after six months. Immediately the appellants responded by paying the amount in cash. In such factual matrix non-payment of interest through cash is not a ground to deny the benefit of the amnesty scheme. In fact such issue is not raised in the impugned order because it is seen that payments made in respect of 12 licenses have been accepted for qualifying for amnesty. 19. Now, the question is whether the appellant is to be punished by demanding a high amount for his default by adopti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
