2020 (9) TMI 560

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....esent case are that the appellant had imported two golf carts with accessories vide Bill of Entry No.928663 dated 12.10.2006 under licence No.0510183761 dated 30.05.2006 issued under Served Form India Scheme (SFIS) availing exemption of Customs Notification No.92/2004-Cus. dated 10.09.2004 by debiting the said SFIS scrip. The assessable value was Rs. 8,23,159/- and duty foregone was Rs. 3,05,645/-. In terms of para 3.6.4.5 of Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009 as amended in RE-2006, utilization of duty credit earned under SFIS was not permitted for payment of duty on vehicles even if such vehicles were freely importable under ITC (HS). The said duty of Rs. 3,05,645/- was required to be paid in cash/pay order. Since the appellant had imported th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts of the case. He further submitted that the original authority as well as the appellate authority passed the orders by not following the direction issued by the Commissioner (Appeals). He further submitted that as per the Foreign Trade Policy (1st September 2004 - 31st March 2009), hotels (like the appellant) were entitled to duty credit scrips equivalent to 5% free to foreign exchange earned during the preceding financial year. In terms of para 3.6.4.5 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009, the utilization of duty credit earned under SFIS was restricted inasmuch as the said duty cred....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....horities. The Customs authorities merely implement the policy of the DGFT. This has been held in the following decisions:- (i) Suresh Enterprises vs. CC, Mumbai - 2005 (179) ELT 466 (Tri.-Mumbai); (ii) UOI vs. Oceanic Export Corporation - 2000 (116) ELT 19 (Mad.); (iii) M.K. Fisheries vs. CC, Cochin - 2002 (150) ELT 998 (Tri.-Chennai). The learned counsel further submitted that as the Licensing Authority (in the present case, DGFT) has not claimed that the appellant had wrongly availed the benefit under the SFIS nor did they take any steps against the appellant, Customs authorities cannot refuse the exemption to the appellant. For this submission, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Titan Medica....