TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (4) TMI 192
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate of duty under Notification No. 160/92-Cus. dated 20-4-1992. In terms of conditions stipulated at S. No. 2 of the table to Notification No. 160/92-Cus., dated 20-4-1992, the importers were under obligation to export finished products equivalent to four times the CIF value of the goods imported, within a period of five years from the date of issue of said licence. Investigations by Jodhpur Customs revealed that the importer had failed to comply the export obligations and thus a show cause notice was issued on grounds of failure to prove that the goods exported are those made of imported capital goods and that the export obligation fulfilled is only 98% of the obligation. As per the annexure attached to the EPCG licence, the licence was is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs, who held that there was no requirement under the notification that the respondents are required to maintain any record showing production from the capital goods imported under EPCG scheme and all that was required was to file a declaration that the goods exported have been manufactured out of the imported capital goods, which obligation has been fulfilled by them. The export obligation was in fact more than 100% and not 98.05% as alleged in the show cause notice and once DGFT has issued a certificate stating that the export obligation has been fulfilled, the same has to be accepted. The revenue has not revealed any evidence to show that the goods exported in fulfilment of export obliga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with respective bills of lading. The statement should also include a declaration from the exporters confirming that the goods exported were manufactured using the capital goods imported under the EPCG scheme against the particular licence. It was his contention that though this statement has been submitted by the exporter, the customs have verified the same and since the exporter could not produce any evidence to show that the exported goods were manufactured out of the capital goods imported under the EPCG licence, the exemption cannot be extended and therefore the Commissioner's order needs to be set aside. 5. Ld. Advocate for the respondents submitted that the conditions regarding proof of discharge of export obligation to the satisfa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., have been accepted by the department and not challenged. Therefore, a different view cannot be taken in their case. 6. Additionally it was submitted that the goods e by them were manufactured by use of capital goods imported under EPCG scheme only and in this regard he refers to the statement of Shri Nirmal Kumar Jam referred to in the show cause notice, wherein he has specifically stated that since the requirement of fabric width in export was 58-inch minimum, the fabric had to be manufactured on looms imported under the licence. He has further stated that though some looms were imported in 1995 against different EPCG licences they were installed only in the month of March/April 1996 and commenced export production after two/three mon....