TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2022
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ER Per : Shri P. Dinesha These appeals are filed against the common Order-in- Original dated 31.03.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-IV. 2. Brief facts as could be gathered from the impugned order is that the Appellant who is engaged in the manufacture of Bulk Drugs, Pharmaceutical Ingredients and Formulations, were alleged to have contravened the conditions of Customs Notification No. 43/2002 in respect of 20 Advance Authorizations by way of importing various inputs duty-free under the advance licensing scheme, but had failed to fulfil the export obligation cast on them. The above appeared to have resulted in contravening the provisions of EXIM/FTP and Customs Notification No. 43/2002 and that they were hence liable to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., they were contesting the demand. Further, in respect of 13 Advance Licenses, the mistake in the demand was also pointed out by the appellant and also indicated that the demand due should have been Rs.2,40,15,912. It has also been highlighted that in respect of 13 Advance Licenses, the total duty foregone was Rs.1,66,48,100 which they were not contesting on which even the interest was worked out and paid; the said amount of Rs.1,74,27,737 was paid before issue of SCN and against the balance, they also paid Rs.42,40,000. 4. In the adjudication order which is impugned herein, the Original Authority has, in terms of the written submissions filed by the importer-appellant, confirmed the demands in respect of 15 Advance Licenses since primaril....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... by 11.07.2006 was not taken into consideration. It was further contended that the EODC was not issued by the DGFT due to the intervention of DRI and hence, it was submitted that the appellant having fulfilled the export obligation, the impugned order and the demand therein are liable to be set aside. 7. This was rebutted by the Ld. Department Representative since, according to her, the statute mandates the fulfilment of not just export obligation, but also of obtaining and furnishing of EODC from the concerned Authority namely DGFT, which having not been done in the case on hand, there is no fallacy in the impugned order. It may be their case that they had fulfilled the export obligation as on 11.07.2006, however, in terms of the FTP, as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elevant are the documents in support, especially the EODC obtained from the concerned DGFT. The advance license scheme read in juxtaposition with the FTP as applicable at the relevant point, mandates the fulfilling of the export obligation within a certain period of time; the concerned exporter may request for additional time in case the export obligation could not be made within the timeframe. It is for the Authority, namely DGFT to permit such extension of time. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the Export Obligation claimed to have been fulfilled is much beyond the permitted period. If the said claim is accepted, then the schemes of advanced licensing for duty-free import and Foreign Trade Policy for meeting Export Obligation becomes redu....