2015 (10) TMI 281

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of duty on the duty free imported material. The said Company filed application before the Settlement Commission to settle the case. Subsequently, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court by Order dt.01.03.2007, in Civil Petition no.9 of 2006, allowed de-merger and Transfer of undertaking of the said Company to the Appellant Company. By Order No.434-435/FINAL ORDER/CUS/MGR/2007, dt.27.11.2007, the Settlement Commission held that the said Company had paid the admitted duty liability of Rs. 27,89.925.00 and they have directed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 8.34 lakhs. There was also direction to pay the interest @ 10% per annum (excluding CVD portion). There is immunity from fine, penalty and prosecution. Thereafter, the Appellant Company filed an ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Basic Customs Duty. There is no evidence available that the Appellant paid the CVD. He submits that the statement placed by the learned Advocate is unsigned and not supported by any material and therefore, the Adjudicating Authority rightly rejected the said claim. He further submits that the Appellant filed the appeal before the High Court and Supreme Court. He submits that the Appellant till date has not paid interest as per the direction of the Settlement Commission and therefore, they are not eligible to get any benefit from the Settlement Commission order. 4. On rejoinder, the learned Advocate submits that the Appellant filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the demand of interest which was rejected by the Hon'ble Co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ad all along been contending that monitoring of exports proceeds realization was the duty of DGFT and the DGFT on the basis of collateral evidence i.e. Banks and Chartered Accountant Certificates have accepted this as a proof of realization of export proceeds. There is substantial compliance and mere non-availability of BRC cannot be a ground for rejecting the contention of the applicant. The applicant had filed the application No.1 on its own accord, wherein out of the 36 Advance Licences, SCNs were issued only in respect of 5 licences only. The bonafide of the applicant can also be seen from the fact that after filling the application (No.1) dated 11.02.2000, the applicant filed Misc. Application dt.21.08.2000 admitting additional duty of....