9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... do not find any fault with the direction of the Commissioner (Appeals) re-storing status quo ante and directing that the matter be decided afresh keeping all the relevant facts and law in mind. While coming to this conclusion we take note of the submission of the respondent that they are not disowning their duty liability. They only want a fair and correct determination of the duty liability after allowing depreciation as per law and taking date of de-bonding into account while arriving at interest liability - Decided against Revenue. - C/Misc./41727/2013 & C/77/2009 - Final Order No.40011/2014 - Dated:- 2-1-2014 - Shri P.K. Das and Shri Mathew John, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Parmod Kumar, JC (AR) For the Respondent : Shri S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed agitating against the auction proceedings before the Hon ble High Court and they also approached the DGFT for de-bonding from EOU scheme by changing to EPCG scheme for which permission was granted to them on 24.3.2005. An agreement could not be reached about what was the duty to be paid under EPCG scheme. In the meanwhile the respondent was corresponding with the Department about the quantification adopted for the demand and finally they were informed by letter dated 18.5.2007 that the demand as was originally communicated to them by letter dated 11.11.2003 has reached finality (Rs.1,30,04,275/-) and the same has to be paid. Against this order the respondent challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) held th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01 on the Department s letter F. No. S4/624/94-Bonds dated 6.1.1997 addressed to the appellant. The Superintendent Bonds had obtained due approval for such extension from the Assistant Commissioner Bonds on 31.1.2001 itself. The demand was issued on 23.7.2003 on the ground of expiry of the validity period when the bonds were well within the validity period upto 8.9.2005. The said demand was not with regard to non-payment of cost recovery charges and not on account of non-fulfillment of export obligation or non-achievement of NFEP. Thus the demand itself was erroneous and contrary to the material facts of the case. Regarding II above: The rebuttal of the appellants request was on the grounds that the order dated 11.11.2003 confirming dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advised to fully cooperate with the department 3. Revenue argues that the original letters had reached finality and it was not appealed against and even before the Hon ble High Court the respondent did not get any relief. The Commissioner (Appeals) entertained an appeal without looking into the limitation aspect. It is also argued that the export obligation has not been fulfilled and the DGFT has penalized them for not fulfilling the export obligation and hence the duty liability cast on them has to be paid and they cannot escape the export obligation for the reason that the original demand was under Section 72 before expiry of the warehousing period. He also argues that as per condition (vi) of Notification No. 13/81-Cus as amended by N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
