TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 614
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d consignments under 4 Bills of Entry all dated 14-7-1995. All these Bills of Entry were finally assessed and the valid licence was debited by the proper officer. This licence was issued by DGFT to M/s. Ratan Exports & Industries Ltd. (M/s. REIL) and M/s. Century International, Calcutta. The applicants received a letter issued by the Dy. Commissioner, dated 14-3-2001 referring to a show cause notice, dated 26-3-1999 directing the appellants to produce certain documents. The appellants lodged their protest and denied having received any show cause notice. The show cause notice was issued for recovering the customs duty amounting to Rs. 25,04,782/- along with proposal for confiscation and imposition of penalty on the ground that the importers....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....firmed the demand to the extent of Rs. 20,45,918/- on the appellants in the case of 4 Bills of Entry along with interest and imposed equal amount of penalty against the appellants under Sec. 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. The contention of the appellants is that vide letter, dated 14-3-2001, the Dy. Commissioner of Customs made a reference to the show cause notice, dated 26-3-1999 directing the appellants to produce certain documents. They protested and denied the receipt of any show cause notice. The Appraising Officer, Adjudication Cell sent a letter directing the appellant production of certain documents relating to modvat credit, which were never in the possession of the appellant since the licence was not issued in the nam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng of the Exim Policy 1992-97, Chapter VII thereof containing the duty Exemption Scheme and the Notification 203/92-Cus., that it is a composite scheme; primary responsibility for monitoring the same rests with the L.A. It is for this reason that the EXIM Policy was announced first on 1-4-1997 and the Notification 203/92-Cus., dated 19-5-1992 contains references to the VBAL (issued under the said scheme). The Notification speaks 'materials' imported are covered by a VBAL and DEEC issued by the L.A. [c.f. condition (i)]. Importer produces proof of having executed a bond or Legal Undertaking (LUT) before the L.A. concerned for complying with the condition of the Notification [c.f. condition (ii)], No double clause (b) of condition (ii) also c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on. Transferee of a VBAL, as the appellant is, is in no position to know that. He also comes into picture only after fulfilment of export obligation by the license holder realisation of export proceeds and redemption of bank guarantee/LUT executed by the importer-licensee as is apparent from conditions in para 67 of the Exim Policy. It is, therefore, not correct for the adjudicating authority to hold that the appellant has not been able to discharge the burden of proof cast on him to claim the benefit of the Notification. Burden of proof is not static concept. In the general run of exemption Notifications, where condition thereof are required to be fulfilled by an assessee, burden lies on an assessee that he satisfies the conditions of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... our above conclusions by Tribunal's two judgments as follows :- (1) Nitco Marble & Granite (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs - [1996 (63) ECR 111 (T) Para - 4] It holds "Irrespective of whether further examinations or formation of opinion is permissible in the ordinary course, the importer cannot be required to prove once again the eligibility for duty free import of the permitted goods." (2) C.C. v. Alfa Exim & Sandeep Impex (P) Ltd. It holds :- "the Customs were not entitled to ask the respondents (importer) to establish nexus between the goods imported and those which were used for manufacturing export products." 7. Undisputedly, the original licensee M/s. Ratan Expor....