TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal waives customs duty predeposit, emphasizes adherence to regulatory permissions.</h1> <h3>KG. DENIM LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COIMBATORE</h3> KG. DENIM LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COIMBATORE - 2009 (247) E.L.T. 323 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues: Waiver of predeposit of customs duty, denial of zero duty benefit under EPCG Scheme, permission to club licenses for zero duty benefit, validity of DGFT permission, denial of benefit by customs authorities.The judgment dealt with the issue of waiver of predeposit of customs duty amounting to Rs. 3,35,75,447 confirmed on imports of machineries by the applicants through ICD, Coimbatore, along with interest and a penalty imposed. The duty demand was upheld due to the denial of zero duty benefit under the EPCG Scheme as the applicants had not imported capital goods of the minimum value required to maintain zero duty import status. Despite the DGFT permitting the clubbing of licenses to retain the zero duty benefit, the Commissioner denied the benefit alleging misdeclaration by the appellants regarding the payment of CVD. The Tribunal found merit in the applicants' argument that customs authorities cannot challenge the DGFT's decision to grant zero duty benefit through clubbing licenses without the DGFT canceling the permission, thus waiving the pre-deposits and staying the recovery pending appeal.Another issue addressed was the denial of zero duty benefit under the EPCG Scheme by the customs authorities based on the alleged misdeclaration by the appellants regarding the payment of CVD. The Commissioner contended that the permission obtained from the DGFT for clubbing licenses was based on incorrect information provided by the appellants. However, the Tribunal found that without the DGFT canceling the permission to club licenses for zero duty benefit, the customs authorities lacked the authority to challenge the decision, leading to the waiver of pre-deposits and a stay on recovery pending appeal.The validity of the DGFT's permission to club licenses for zero duty benefit was a crucial aspect of the judgment. The Tribunal emphasized that since the DGFT had not revoked the permission granted to the appellants, the customs authorities were not in a position to dispute the zero duty benefit obtained through clubbing licenses. This finding supported the waiver of pre-deposits and the stay on recovery granted by the Tribunal, highlighting the significance of adhering to permissions granted by relevant authorities in such matters.The judgment also highlighted the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to permissions granted by competent authorities. By emphasizing that the customs authorities could not overturn the DGFT's decision without proper revocation of permission, the Tribunal underscored the need for consistency and respect for the decisions made by different regulatory bodies. This aspect of the judgment reinforced the principle of legal certainty and the significance of following due process in matters involving benefits under schemes like the EPCG Scheme, ensuring fair treatment for importers and upholding the integrity of regulatory frameworks.
TaxTMI 