2003 (6) TMI 444

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The application was admitted by this Bench vide Admission Order No. 2/2003 (Cus) dated 4-2-2003 wherein, the details of the case have also been spelt out. However, in a nutshell, it may be stated that the applicant obtained an EPCG licence bearing No. 04500281 dated 1-9-97 which permitted import of capital goods, namely, ARCH PRESS with different cavities, Speed Tester, and Ovens for the locking of the wheels with Electric Board with electronic programmer. As per the said licence, the applicant was under obligation to export cutting and grinding wheels worth US$ 18,70,876.14 within a period of 5 years from the date of issue of the licence. The applicant imported the capital goods and filed two Bs/E namely, 68946/18-12-97 and 48321/8-9-97 a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d the records, the following order is passed. 4. The Bench finds that the applicant has accepted their failure to achieve the export obligation contingent upon import of the capital goods on the strength of the EPCG licence in question. The entire duty foregone has also been admitted, which has also been realized by the Revenue by encashment of the BG on 1-8-2002 as is seen from the report dated 6-9-2002 from file F. No. C1/MISC. 10/2002-legal (Sea) of the Dy. Commissioner of Customs. Even though the applicant has claimed to have exported the finished goods and achieved 2.6% of the export obligation, they have not pressed this point nor sought proportionate reduction in duty demand. On the other hand, the entire amount of duty foregon....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....laiming remission of interest on the additional Customs duty is hypothetical. He, therefore, insisted on levy of full interest. On the question of reduction of interest rate from 24% to 15% with retrospective effect as per Finance Act, 2003, he requested two days' time to file written submissions but till date no such report has been received from the Respondent. 6. The argument of the Advocate that there is no loss of revenue to the Government as they could have availed the Cenvat credit if they had paid additional Customs duty is no doubt attractive, but, the fact remains that the applicant had not paid the additional Customs duty at the appropriate time i.e., at the time of clearance of the capital goods nor availed the Cenvat cred....