Jurisdictional competence for customs demand notice under concessional import rules determined the waiver of pre-deposit and stay.

Imports cleared under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. were subject to Condition 5 and the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996. Under Rule 8, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise was the authority to monitor end-use compliance and to initiate recovery under Section 28 of the Customs Act on breach of the notification conditions. A show-cause notice issued instead by the Commissioner of Customs was therefore treated as lacking the requisite competence, creating a strong prima facie case for the applicants and supporting waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery during the appeals.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner of Customs was competent to issue the show-cause notice for alleged violation of the conditions of the concessional import notification and whether the applicants were entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay.

Analysis: The goods had been imported under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. and, by virtue of condition 5, the procedure under the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996 applied. Under Rule 8, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise was the authority empowered to ensure end-use compliance and to issue notice for recovery of customs duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act upon violation. Since the notice in the case was issued by the Commissioner of Customs, the authority issuing it was found not to be competent, giving rise to a strong prima facie case.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice issued by the Commissioner of Customs was held to be without competence for the purpose of the notification conditions, and the applicants were granted complete waiver of pre-deposit with stay of recovery during pendency of the appeals.

---