TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 1066
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s (SM) EPCG licence No.and date 0530143820 dated 05.062007 0530145100 dated 30.11.2007 0530144681 dated 28/08/2007 EODC issuance date 30.03.2017 30.03.2017 30.03.2017 Period 2007-08 2007-08 2007-08 Order-in-Appeal CC-A-CUSTOMS - D-1-EXP-NCH-439-2019-20 dated 15.11.2019 CC-A-CUSTOMS - D-1-EXP-NCH-440-2019-20 dated 14.11.2019 CC-A-CUSTOMS - D-1EXP-NCH-441-2019-20 dated 14.11.2019 Order-in-Original HKP/ADC/ACE/31/2017 dated 16.3.2017 HKP/ADC/ACE/32/ 2017 dated 16.3.2017 HKP/ADC/ACE/30/ 2017 dated 16.3.2017 Show Cause Notice HKP/ADC/SCN/ACE/ Gr.VII/9/2016 dated 22.06.2016 HKP/ADC/SCN/ACE/ Gr.VII/24/2016 dated 22.06.2016 HKP/ADC/SCN/ACE/ Gr.VII/08/2016 dated 22.06.2016 Am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ODCs were to be submitted within the specified period of 30 days from the expiry of the period and thus, the appellants have violated the condition of the license and notification. With this observation respective Show cause notices dated 22.06.2016 were served upon the appellants proposing the recovery of respective total custom duty foregone (as shown in the table above) on the imported goods along with the interest and the proportionate penalty. The said proposal was confirmed initially vide the Oder-in-Original No. 31/2017 dated 16.03.2017. The appeal thereof has been rejected. The requisite details of each of the appeals are tabulated hereunder:- 3. I have heard Ms. Jyoti Pal and Mr. Ashwani Bhatia learned Counsels for the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed and unreasonable. It is submitted that though EODC was not received before the Order-in-Original was passed but it was received before the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) and was duly produced before him. However, he has been miserably silent about the same and has mechanically rejected the appeal. Order, accordingly is prayed to be set aside and appeal is prayed to be allowed. 6. While rebutting these submissions, learned D.R. has impressed upon that in terms of Notification No.97 of 2004, the appellant was required to fulfill the export obligation within a period of 8 years from the date of issue of license. In the proportion such that 50% of the obligation was to be fulfilled in the block of first to 6th Year and remaining....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rts in three of the appeals were made in the year 2007-2008 itself. 3. Export obligation got fulfilled in the year 2011 itself (31.03.2011) 4. The time period for the export obligation otherwise expires on 04.06.2015, 29.11.2016, 27.09.2016 respectively. 5. There occurred an error in average EO figure that the appellants case, for its modification, was pending consideration before EPCG, in DGFT Headquarters that too since much prior the expiry of the aforesaid period, for fulfilling export obligation. 6. EODC stands finally issued on 30th march, 2017 i.e. -prior passing of Order-in-Appeal and 15 days later than Order-in-Original. 8. The above admitted facts are clear to hold that once EODC had been iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....preme Court in 2010 (257) ELT A18 (SC) has held that where recovery has been ordered by the Department during the pendency of application for regularization and issuance of EODC before DGFT, the same is highly unjustified. It was held that: 'The fact that the matter is pending before DGFT is not disputed by the respondent (Department). If there is delay in regularization and issuance of EODC by the DGFT, thus, the customs authorities cannot penalize the petitioner by resorting to coercive action." 9. In the present case, it is also not in dispute that the petitioner has fulfilled the export obligation substantially and wherever there is little short fall, the petitioner has sought regularization and issuance of EODC by offering ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roduced the EODC before Commissioner (Appeals) proving that he has fulfilled the export obligation. The order ignoring the said EOC with an intent to confirm the recovery of duty waiver sought by the appellant at the time of imports is nothing but a forcible recovery. The law has been settled that once EODC is issued, the Department cannot recover the amount of duty waiver. This has been held by this Tribunal also in the case of Eicher Tractor vs. CC, New Delhi reported 2018 (10) TMI 413 (Trib.-Delhi). Similar has been the observations of Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Pointec Writing Instruments Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin reported as 2019 (8) TMI 1496 (CESTAT-Bangalore). Relevant portion is extracted bel....