Pentafour Solec Technologies Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT Chennai held that duty demand due to non-fulfilment of export obligation justified as department empower to recover escaped duty when post importation conditions are not fulfilled. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
Facts- Directorate General of Central Excise Initelligence (DGCEI) conducted an investigation into imports of capital goods valued at Rs.20,01,60,280/- made by the Appellant during March 1997 under zero duty EPCG Scheme but could not export the resultant products resulting in issuance of a Show Cause notice dated 02.12.05 alleging contravention of EPCG scheme and seeking to deny the benefit of Customs-Notification No. 111/95-Cus dated 05.06.1995 and consequently proposed to demand Customs duty of Rs.7,89,45,622/- along with applicable interest and to impose penalty u/s. 112(a) of the ACT on the Appellant company and its officials besides, proposing to confiscate the goods imported duty free in terms of Section 111(o) of the ACT and appropriate the duty amount already paid by enforcing the bank guarantee. The adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original No. 7406/2008 dated 14.03.2008 confirmed the proposals.
Conclusion- Tribunal in the case of Bombay Hospital Trust Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai has held that when post importation conditions in an exemption notification are not fulfilled, the Department has the power to recover the escaped duty in terms of Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962. Hence, in view of the above decisions, we are of the considered opinion that the duty demand in the present case is in order and does not call for any interference. Also held that we uphold the confiscation of the imported goods for non-fulfilment of the export obligation under the provisions of Section 111(o) and imposition of fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.
