TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 388
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962 [the Customs Act]. 2. It transpires from the record that M/s. Bestech Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. [Bestech Hospitalities] was engaged in the business of running hotels. It imported two BMW cars and claimed benefit of Notification No. 97/2004-Cus. dated 17.09.2014 [the Notification] in terms of EPCG Scheme. The cars were imported for the purpose of rendering services to foreign guests staying at Hotel Park Plaza, Gurgaon, owned by it at the relevant time so as to earn foreign exchange through the services rendered with the help of such cars. 3. Bestech Hospitalities claims to have fulfilled the export obligation contemplated under the Notification and applied for grant of Export Obligation Discharge Certif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 2013 and Customs Appeal No. 55311 of 2013 to assail imposition of penalties upon them. 8. The appellant also filed the present Customs Appeal No. 4120 of 2012. The aforesaid three appeals filed by Bestech Hospitalities and the two Directors were decided by this Tribunal by a common order dated 05.08.2025. The order passed by the Commissioner (Preventive) was set aside and the appeals were allowed. The relevant portions of the order dated 05.08.2025 passed by the Tribunal are reproduced below: "14. The dispute centers around the benefit of the Notification claimed by the appellant in respect of the two imported BMW cars through two Bills of Entry, both dated 16.02.2006. The imports were made under the EPCG Scheme. The benefit h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t does not have any jurisdiction to sit in judgment over the EODC issued by the DGFT. xxxxxxxxxx 24. It is not in dispute that EODC had been issued to the appellant by DGFT on 30.06.2008. It is also not in dispute that the said EODC has not been cancelled till date by DGFT." (emphasis supplied) 9. The division bench, thereafter, placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Titan Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. Collector of Customs, New Delhi [2003 (151) E.L.T. 254 (S.C.)] which was followed by the Delhi High Court in Design Co. & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors [W.P.(C) 14477/2022 decided on 22.11.2024] to hold that the demand could not have been confirmed. 10. In Titan Medical Systems the Supreme Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g that the export obligation had been fulfilled by the appellant. The Customs department would, therefore, not have any jurisdiction to sit in judgment over the EODC issued by the DGFT." (emphasis supplied) 13. The Division Bench also examined whether statements under section 108 of the Customs Act could be relied upon if the procedure contemplated under section 138B of the Customs Act was not followed. After placing reliance upon certain decisions of the Tribunal, the Division Bench held that the Commissioner (Preventive) was not justified in placing reliance on the statements made under section 108 of the Customs Act for arriving at a conclusion that the provisions of the Notification had been violated. The relevant portion of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mitted that he had not gone through the conditions of EPCG Licence, while issuing the utilization/installation certificates; that the two certificates nos. 97/1/RK an 97/2/RK dt. NIL issued in respect of import of two BMW Cars having Registration Nos. HR 26 AC 9119 and HR 26 AC 8822. Both the certificates were issued without following proper procedure and verifying the documents and the Chartered Engineer has knowingly and intentionally issued the certificate which resulted in evasion of customs duty amounting to Rs. 6700882. These certificates were issued in violation of conditions laid down in EPCG Licence and the requirements of utilization, installation and uses. Thus by this act of omission and commission, Mr. Rohit Kumar, Chartered En....