9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 908X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted. It appears that show cause notice was issued to the appellant treating the total export obligation period to be eight years from the date of issuance of the license - It is also not disputed that the appellant had applied for the issuance of the Certificate on November 09, 2016 before the expiry of ten years but it was issued to the appellant by the DGFT only on December 09, 2016. The appellant cannot be blamed for delay of three days since the appellant had admittedly applied for issuance of the certificate on November 09, 2016. It cannot be said that the appellant had violated any of the conditions of the notification - Appeal allowed. - Custom Appeal No. 50013 of 2020 - FINAL ORDER NO. 50052/2023 - Dated:- 13-1-2023 - MR. DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT AND MR. P.V.SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Ashish Kumar Shukla, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Rakesh Kumar, Authorized Representative of the Department ORDER This appeal seeks the quashing of the order dated September 05, 2019 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) [ the Commissioner (Appeals)] , by which the order dated November 17, 2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner confirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly:- S.No. Period from the date of licence Proportion of total export obligation (1) (2) (3) 1. 2. Block of 1st to 10th year Block of 7th to 8th year 50% 50% 3. The appellant has enclosed a copy of the license dated December 06, 2006, which clearly shows that the export obligation period is twelve years. 4. A perusal of the aforesaid notification indicates that where the export obligation period is twelve years, 50% of the proportion of total export obligation has to be fulfilled in block of first to tenth year. The appellant had, therefore, to fulfill 50% of the total export obligation by December 05, 2016. 5. A show cause notice dated October 14, 2015 was, however, issued to the appellant by the Additional Commissioner of Customs mentioning therein that the appellant had failed to fulfill the conditions of the Notification as he failed to submit the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate [the EODC] within the stipulated time. The relevant portion of the show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch time the said certificate would be produced and therefore, no purpose would be served by keeping the adjudication proceedings pending. The Additional Commissioner, therefore, observed that the appellant failed to comply with the conditions of the notification as it had not submitted the Export EODC within the stipulated period. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Commissioner is reproduced: 8. The issue involved in the instant case is that the notice had imported and cleared capital goods under ECG Licence No. 0630000774 dated 06.12.2006 at concessional rate of Custom duty of 5% under Notification No. 97/2004-Cus dated 17.09.2004 as amended subject to the condition that the importer fulfills Export Obligation as prescribed in the said Notification. The notice was required to fulfill the condition to produce, within 30 days of the expiry of each block year from the date of issue of license, evidence showing the extent of Export Obligation fulfilled, and where Export Obligation of any particular block is not fulfilled and where Export Obligation of any particular block is not fulfilled, the importer shall within 3 months from the expiry of said block pay duties of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of EODC cannot be kept pending for an indefinite period. Order passed by the adjudicating authority is correct, as the EODC was not submitted at that point of time and the order strictly adheres to the principles of natural justice. 5.3 Revenue matters pertaining to Customs Duty or benefits arising out of these Schemes are to boost exports. These facilities shall not be misused. There has to be a deterrent for effective measures to be taken to safeguard the revenue. I have gone through the other case laws submitted by the appellant and find that the facts and circumstances of the case laws are different from that of the facts and circumstances in the instant case, hence, the same have no bearing on the present proceedings and therefore, are distinguishable. In the light of these findings, I don't find any reason to interfere with the decision in the Order in Original and hence pass the following order. (emphasis supplied) 9. Shri Ashish Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) both failed to appreciate that in a case where the export obligation period is twelve years, 50% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ince the order holds that despite time having been granted to the appellant to submit the Certificate it was not submitted. 13. Though it was the contention of the appellant that it had applied for issue the Certificate in time and the application was pending before the Director General of Foreign Trade, but still as the export obligation period has been mentioned to be twelve years in the license granted to the appellant and the conditions prescribed in the notification for fulfillment of export obligation is 50% at the end of the tenth year, which period expired on December 05, 2016, the show cause notice for non-fulfillment of the export obligation could not have been issued prior to December 05, 2016. In the instant case, it was issued on October 14, 2015. It appears that show cause notice was issued to the appellant treating the total export obligation period to be eight years from the date of issuance of the license. 14. It is also not disputed that the appellant had applied for the issuance of the Certificate on November 09, 2016 before the expiry of ten years but it was issued to the appellant by the DGFT only on December 09, 2016. The appellant cannot be blamed for d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
