2015 (10) TMI 2610

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6,784/- by denying Notification No. 203/92-Cus., dated 19-5-1992 in respect of import made against Value Based Advance Licence No. PL-2052796, dated 19-3-1993 and also demanded interest at the rate of 24% per annum. 2. The fact of the case is that a show cause notice dated 29-1-1999 was issued to the appellants asking them to pay customs duty of Rs. 15,06,784/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum in respect of 10 Bills of Entry wherein they had imported raw material against Value Based Advance Licence issued in importer's own name. As per contention of the show cause notice, appellant was supposed to comply with condition (v)(a) of the Notification No. 203/92-Cus., according to which the Modvat credit should not be availe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ignment and in respect of 8 consignment, the applicant reversed the credit along with interest as per the Amnesty Scheme. In this regard applicant had produced necessary certificate issued by the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise. Since the said certificate was not produced during first round of adjudication, this Tribunal remanded matter for de novo adjudication. Aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant is before us. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Shri T. Vishanathan, ld. counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has reversed majority amount of Modvat credit of Rs. 5,66,564.51 along with interest of Rs. 1,71,745.81 on 15-7-1995 which is before due date given in the Amnesty Scheme i.e. 31-1-1997 and the only due to arithme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the condition (v)(a) of notification stands complied with and so far those import are concerned benefit of Notification No. 203/92-Cus. could not have been denied. He further submits that even if all the bill of entries as mentioned in the show cause notice are taken, the quantum of duty was wrongly calculated. It has been pointed out before the adjudicating authority. He invited our attention to Annexure to the show cause notice wherein against Sl. No. 5 in Bill of Entry No. 12894, dated 31-3-1994 duty foregone was shown as Rs. 8,51,865/- whereas as per his claim, it should be Rs. 40,932/-, thus there are similar errors in respect of other bills of entries and as per his submission the actual duty demand in respect of 10 bills of entry sho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Cus. (Export), Mumbai v. M/s. Kesoram Industries Ltd. [2009 (233) E.L.T. 239 (Tri. - Mumbai)]. (b)     Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Cus. (Export), Mumbai [2013 (293) E.L.T. 46 (Tri. - Mumbai)]. (c)     Go Go International P. Ltd. v. Commr. of Cus. (Export), Nhava Sheva [2010 (255) E.L.T. 81 (Tri. - Mumbai)]. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. 6. As per the facts of the case, we find that the Notification No. 203/92-Cus. was denied on the ground that entire Modvat credit availed by the appellant along with interest have not been reversed before 31-1-1997 as prescribed under the Amnesty Scheme. However, the appellant have reversed sub....