Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Kohinoor Impex (P) Ltd. vs Cc on 4 December, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001(74)ECC140
ORDER G.R. Sharma, Member (T)
1. The applicants have failed an application for modification of Stay Order No. 203/2000-B praying that the impugned order may be modified and pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 4 lakhs ordered therein may be waived.
2. Arguing the case, M. Chandrashekharan Ld. Sr. Advocate with Shri A.S. Sundar Rajan, Ld. Advocate submits that the licence was issued for duty free import of goods valued at Rs. 5.4 crores on the condition that they will be exporting the goods of Rs. 10.80 crores. He submits that the applicants exported the goods valued for more than Rs. 10.80 crores and submitted their Pass-Book to the Customs Authorities for audit alongwith shipping bills under which the goods were exported. He submits that instead of examination the goods, the documents submitted by the applicant, the departmental authorities issued a SCN on 19.3.91 for default in compliance with the requirement of Pass-Book No. 00674. He submits that the Asst. Commissioner confirmed the demand of Rs. 20,39,10,878. He submits that the matter came up before the Tribunal, the Tribunal after considering the facts of the case directed them to deposit a sum of Rs. 5 crores within eight weeks. He submits that in the mean time, the applicants have got a communication from the DGFT stating that their legal undertaing covering the import of the goods duty free has been cancelled. He submits that the legal undertaing is cancelled only when the DGFT office is convinced on production of evidence that the entire export obligation has been met. He submits that since the entire obligation of export has been met and confirmed by the concerned authority (DGFT), therefore, the impugned stay order may be modified and pre-deposit of duty may be waived.
3. Shri Ashok Kumar, Ld. JDR submits that the facts were taken into consideration by the Tribunal at the time of hearing stay petition and that after considering all the facts, the Tribunal had directed the applicants to deposit a sum of Rs. 5 crores. He submits that any modification whatsover is not called for at this stage and since the appellants had not complied with the stay order, they should be directed to deposit the entire amount of duty.
4. We have heard the rival submissions. We note that the demand arose because of non-fulfilment of the export obligation. We also note that the applicants have now produced the evidence showing that the legal undertaking has been cancelled, meaning thereby that the export obligation has been met in full. In the circumstances, we note that there is a case for modification of the stay order. Having regard to the fact that the export obligation has been met and so accepted by the authorities concerned, we waive pre-deposit of duty and modify the stay order to that extent.
5. With the consent of both sides, we heard the appeal. We find that the entire demand was based and computed on account of the export obligation not being met. Since the claim of the applicants is that they have fully met export obligation. This needs verification at the end of the concerned Asst. Commissioner. Therefore, we consider it a fit case for remand. The matter is, therefore remanded to the Asst. Commissioner with the direction to examine the entire issue afresh and satisfy himself that the entire export obligation has been met and pass appropriate orders afresh on merits of the case after giving the appellant an opportunity of being heard in person. The appeal is allowed by way of remand after waiving pre-deposit of the amount directed in the stay order.