TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1289
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cheme. The said import was subject to the condition that the appellant would be exporting LPG Cylinders worth Rs. 33,27,38,500/-, within a period of five years from the date of issue of license. The Department noted that the capital goods were imported vide said Bill of Entry No. 582, dated 24.12.1996 and cleared under ex-bound for home consumption vide Ex-bone Bill of Entry No. 1201 dated 17.08.1998 on payment of concessional duty of Rs. 53,59,498/- in terms of Notification No. 28/97. Further, Department noticed that since they had not fulfilled the export obligation, as required in terms of Customs Notification read with Para 38 of EXIM Policy 1992-97, the imported goods were seized on 16.05.2001 and after further investigation, the appellants were asked to explain why the said goods should not be confiscated under Section 111(o) and why the benefit of Notification No. 28/97 should not be denied and differential duty be recovered in terms of condition of the notification and bond executed in this regard. 3. After adjudication, the goods were confiscated with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 50 lakhs. An amount of Rs. 1,08,68,097/- was also dema....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is appeal, which started from the time when the EPCG License was obtained by the appellant. The EPCG License required them to export 4 times that of the CIF value of imports within a period of 5 years. Subsequently, the appellant imported certain state-of-the-art machinery in 1998-99 and also sought extension for meeting export obligation from DGFT on 08.05.2000, however, the machinery which was imported on concessional duty on 17.08.1998, was seized by the Department on 16.01.2001 and a Show Cause Notice was issued on 31.02.2001, which was even before the expiry of the original export obligation period i.e. 02.10.2001. Further, through different rounds of appeals against the orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority and their being remanded by the Tribunal, the matter was finally adjudicated on 21.01.2013, which is the subject matter of present appeal. 6. The main ground taken by the Learned Advocate is that it is on record, as also observed in successive remand orders passed by the Tribunal in respect of the same Show Cause Notice, that the Show Cause Notice dated 31.05.2001 was issued much before the expiry of the export obligation period which was ultimately extended up to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Line Machine has been imported under EPCG obligation and based on the CIF value, export obligation was reduced as per the decision taken by EPCG Committee in meeting dated 30.05.2001. The appellants were also required to export through third party through sister concern i.e. M/s Shri Shakti Cylinders (P) Ltd., Hyderabad. The DGFT asked the Department to take appropriate action for release of confiscated machine to importer enabling him to fulfil the export obligation against the special EPCG License. Admittedly, period of export obligation was further extended up to 03.06.2012. It is also an admitted fact that despite this the machines were not released and seizure was not lifted. Therefore, there is some force in the argument made by the appellant that in the absence of the availability of the subject machine, they were not in a position to meet the export obligation itself and it became an act of impossibility. It is also on record that the period for export obligation was extended by the Competent Authority from time to time and finally up to 03.06.2012. Therefore, the seizure prior to 03.06.2012 itself was pre-mature. It is also an admitted position that DGFT took in to accou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... based on depreciated value of capital goods. Thus, we find that on this count itself, the confirmation of demand of differential duty without considering all relevant factual matrix and certain specific provisions in the notification itself i.e. condition 3 of Notification No. 28/97 dated 01.04.1997 for proper calculation of duty required to be paid for non-fulfilment of export obligation in part of full, is not proper and sustainable. The Adjudicating Authority is required to allow them to present all relevant facts and provisions/relaxation allowed by Competent Authority, if any, post 03.06.2012 before arriving at the amount of differential duty payable by the appellant in terms of bond executed by them. The permissible export made by them during intervening period will also have to be considered in terms of provisions under the Notification and EXIM Policy. Thus, to this extent impugned order confirming demand of differential duty is set aside and remanded back for re-computation. 11. In so far as the issue of confiscation of machinery is concerned, we find that first of all, the Show Cause Notice itself was pre-mature and the Authority should have waited till the issue of e....