Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Bilcare Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Pune-I ... on 26 August, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPLICATION No. C/S/414/10 APPEAL No. C/243/10 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. GOA/CUS/CM/115/2009 dated 30.11.2009 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Goa) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President and Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
====================================================== Bilcare Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I & II Respondent Appearance:
Shri S.S. Gupta, Chartered Accountant, for appellant Shri Navneet, Authorised Representative (SDR), for respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President and Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 26.8.2011 Date of Decision: 26.8.2011 ORDER NO Per: S.S. Kang Heard both sides.
2. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty. The demand is confirmed on the ground that the applicant failed to fulfil the export obligation.
3. The contention of the applicant is that the DGFT vide letter dated 22.6.2010 conveyed that the export obligation has not been fully met by the applicant and after receipt of the letter, the applicant paid differential duty of Rs.1,14,162/- along with interest and again approached the DGFT to issue the necessary Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC).
4. The Revenue submitted that the documents produced by the applicant now showing the partial fulfilment of the export obligation were not before the lower authorities. These documents require verification.
5. As the DGFT vide letter dated 22.6.2010 conveyed the deficiency in fulfillment of the export obligation and the applicant had paid duty and interest and also the applicant approached the DGFT again to issue the necessary EODC, the matter requires reconsideration by the adjudicating authority. The impugned order is set aside after waiving the pre-deposit of duty and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated in Court) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) (S.S. Kang) Vice President tvu 1 3