Appeal granted, orders set aside for confiscation, redemption fines, duty demands. Nullified penalty for imports on impugned licenses.

GODAVARI DRUGS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI

GODAVARI DRUGS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI - 2006 (197) E.L.T. 194 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues Involved:
1. Denial of benefit of exemption Notification No. 203/92-Cus.
2. Demand of differential customs duty.
3. Confiscation of excess raw materials and imported sodium metal.
4. Adjustment of previously paid duty.
5. Imposition of interest and penalty.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Benefit of Exemption Notification No. 203/92-Cus.:
The appellants were manufacturers who obtained advance licenses under the DEEC scheme, some of which were impugned in the proceedings. The show-cause notice questioned the benefit of exemption availed under Notification No. 203/92-Cus. for excess raw materials imported against advance license No. 3288928 and certain other licenses. The Commissioner denied the benefit of the notification for the sodium metal imported under four advance licenses, demanding duty and interest. However, the Tribunal found that the appellants had met export obligations before transferring the licenses, and thus, the bar in Notification No. 203/92 did not apply. The Tribunal concluded that no conditions of the notification were violated, and therefore, the denial of the benefit was not justified.

2. Demand of Differential Customs Duty:
The show-cause notice demanded differential duty of Rs. 4,81,403/- for excess raw materials and Rs. 86,81,059/- for sodium metal imported against the four advance licenses. The Tribunal determined that the duty demand was based on an incorrect interpretation of the notification and EXIM Policy, as the export obligations had been discharged before the transfer of licenses. Thus, the demand for differential duty was not upheld.

3. Confiscation of Excess Raw Materials and Imported Sodium Metal:
The Commissioner ordered the confiscation of excess raw materials valued at Rs. 4,91,226/- and sodium metal valued at Rs. 1,96,10,668/- under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found that the appellants had used the sodium metal in the manufacture of export products, and no violations of the notification or EXIM Policy were determined. Consequently, the orders of confiscation and the associated redemption fines were set aside.

4. Adjustment of Previously Paid Duty:
An amount of Rs. 3,16,041/- already paid by the appellants was to be adjusted against the total duty liability. Since the duty demands were not upheld, the Tribunal did not find any further orders necessary regarding the adjustment of this amount.

5. Imposition of Interest and Penalty:
The show-cause notice also demanded interest and proposed a penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal referenced previous case law, stating that there could be no levy of interest in respect of imports under advance licenses. As the duty demands were not upheld, the Tribunal also set aside the orders of interest and penalty.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of confiscation, redemption fines, duty demands of Rs. 86,81,059/-, and associated interest. The duty demand of Rs. 4,81,403/- was not pressed by the appellants, and since it was already paid, no further orders were passed on this amount. The appeal was allowed in the above terms, nullifying the orders of confiscation and penalty for all imports on the impugned licenses.