TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 898
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rit petition is against Exts.P22 and P23 orders passed by the 1st respondent under Section 142 of the Customs Act detaining capital goods that were imported by the petitioner under cover of various EPCG licenses issued to them in the year 2000. The detention notices were issued taking note of the fact that the petitioner had not fulfilled the conditions regarding installation of the imported items of capital machinery, within the specified period after their import, and had consequently lost their entitlement to claim the benefit of concessional rate of duty in respect of the imports effected under the EPCG scheme. It is for the recovery of the differential customs duty that was forgone at the time of the import of the aforesaid items of ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... duty forgone on the imported capital goods, along with applicable interest. An appeal that was preferred by the petitioner against the said order of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs was rejected by the First Appellate Authority by his order dated 05.06.2012. The petitioner was, therefore, before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter 'CESTAT') through an appeal against the order of the First Appellate Authority. The CESTAT by its order dated 05.01.2015 partly allowed the appeal by granting the petitioner an extension of time for installation of machinery till December 2015. By the said order (Ext.P6), the CESTAT also observed that the extension granted by it should not be considered as a final deadline....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....017, referred to the extension granted by the Appellate Tribunal in Ext.P6 order, and granted an interim stay of further proceedings pursuant to the detention notices, pending disposal of the writ petition. The interim order that was initially granted for a period of one month has been extended from time time and continues to be in force even today. While so, and during the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner approached the Customs authorities with further requests for extension of time for installing the items of capital machinery that were imported by them. On the Customs authorities rejecting the said requests for extension of time on two occasions, the petitioner impugned the said rejection letters before the CESTAT on both....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Customs Authorities, Sri.R.Harishankar, that considering the number of opportunities that have been granted to the petitioner for installing the items of capital machinery, and their inability to install the machinery within the time granted, it would be an exercise in futility to postpone the recovery of the differential customs duty any further, for the impossibility of the petitioner to comply with the export obligation required under the EPCG scheme is a forgone conclusion. 5. I have heard Sri.Sivadas, the learned Senior counsel, duty assisted by Sri.Karthik S.Nair, appearing for the petitioner and Sri.R.Harishankar learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1 st and 2nd respondents,....