Acropolis Granites Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Air)

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH CHENNAI

Appeal No.C/S/41019/2013 & C/41392/2013

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.C.Cus.No.590 & 591/2013 dt. 8.4.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai]

Acropolis Granites Ltd. Appellant

Versus

Commissioner of Customs (Air), Chennai Respondent

Appearance:

Shri N. Viswanathan, Advocate For the Appellant

Shri K.P.Muralidharan, AC (AR) For the Respondent

CORAM :

Honble Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member Honble Shri P.K. Choudhary, Judicial Member

Date of Hearing/Decision : 11.5.2015

FINAL ORDER No.40534/2015

Per R. Periasami

As the issue lies in a short compass, with the consent of both sides, after dispensing with the requirement of predeposit, we proceed to take up the appeal itself for hearing and disposal.

2. The brief facts of the case the appellants are manufacturers and exporters of Granite Monuments. They had imported certain materials through Air Cargo Complex, Chennai and cleared them for home consumption vide duty-free "Quality and Quantity Based Advance License" bearing No.0410035889 dt. 20.1.2003 issued by JDGFT under Customs Notification 43/2002 dt. 19.4.2002. Appellants were required to discharge export obligation within a period of two years from the date of issuance of licence. Since the appellants failed to produce Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) as stipulated in the notification, a demand notice dt. 18.6.2005 was issued. Subsequently, the adjudicating authority confirmed demand of Customs duty of Rs.9,22,500/- under Section 28 (1) read with Customs Notfn 43/02 dt. 19.4.02 along with applicable interest for non-fulfilment of export obligation. Aggrieved by the order, appellant preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Commissioner (Appeals) passed an interim order of predeposit of entire amount for hearing the appeal. Since the appellants failed to comply with interim order, the LAA dismissed the appeal vide impugned order. Hence the present appeal.

3. Ld.Advocate for the appellant submits that in respect of above advance licence they have already fulfilled the export obligation and also obtained EODC from the DGFT authorities and the same was intimated to the Commissioner (Appeals) on 4.3.2013 enclosing a copy of EODC certificate. In spite of that, the LAA has dismissed the appeal without considering their compliance.

4. Heard Ld. AR for Revenue who reiterates the impugned order.

5. After hearing both sides, we find that the short issue in this case is failure of appellant to submit Export Obligation Discharge Certificate in respect of advance licence No. 0410035889 dt. 20.1.2003. On perusal of the letter dt. 4.3.2013, appellants have enclosed copy of EODC issued by ADGFT on 28.2.2013. It is evident from the record that in respect of licence No. 0410035889 dt. dt. 20.1.2003 they have fulfilled the export obligation. Accordingly, DGFT issued No Objection Certificate for cancellation of the bond. Therefore, it is prima facie evident that appellants have fulfilled the obligation and obtained EODC on 28.2.2013. In view of this position, it would be appropriate to remand this matter to the adjudicating authority to verify the original EODC and pass orders on closure of the file subject to verification. Appeal is therefore remanded to LAA with a direction to appellant to produce all the original documents before the adjudicating authority who shall give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant for resolving the issue. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is remanded to the adjudicating authority in the above terms. Stay application is disposed.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(P.K. CHOUDHARY) (R. PERIASAMI) JUDICIAL MEMBER TECHNICAL MEMBER

gs 3