Cerebra Integrated Technologies Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs And Service ...

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 63/2006 dated 21/04/2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE Mrs. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Mr. B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes

Cerebra Integrated Technologies Ltd. No. S-5, Off 3rd Cross, Peenya Industrial Area, Peenya 1st Stage, Bangalore Appellant(s)

Versus Commissioner of Customs and Service Tax, Bangalore C.R. Building, Queens Road, P.B. No. 5400, Bangalore  560 001 Karnataka Respondent(s)

Appearance:

None For the Appellant

Mr. N. Jagdish, AR For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 09/02/2015 Date of Decision: 09/02/2015 CORAM:

HON'BLE Mrs. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Mr. B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 20294 / 2015

Per: ARCHANA WADHWA

Nobody appeared for the appellant, in spite of the notice of hearing having been sent to them well in advance. We also find from the records that appellants were unrepresented during the previous hearings, when the matter was being adjourned in the interest of justice. Accordingly we have heard the learned DR and have gone through the impugned orders.

2. As per facts on record the appellants imported capital goods under EPCG licence and were under obligation to export computers and computer related systems, parts and accessories etc worth Rs. 9.80 crores (Rupees Nine Crores Eighty Lakhs approximately) in terms of Notification No. 49/2000 Cus. dated 27.04.2000, within a period of eight years from the date of issuance of EPCG licence. The dispute in the present appeal relates to non-fulfillment of export obligations for the second block period. The appellants contention before the authorities below was that they had sought for extension of time from the JDFT. Such extension of time for fulfillment of export obligations have not been granted by JDFT authorities.

3. The lower authorities have observed that in spite of the efforts made by the appellant, the period does not stand extended by the JDFT authorities. They have also observed that they failed to note the EPCG licence No. on export documents and failed to furnish details of exports done during the block period within 30 days of completion of the block period. They did file a statement of exports to JDFT showing details of the shipping bills without EPCG licence No. The Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that though the lapse of non-mentioning of EPCG is a condonable lapse but the same is required to be condoned after submission of certain documents and verification of the same. As the appellants have not produced any evidence for following the procedure in the case, he has not accepted the appellants stand and has held that they have failed to fulfill the export obligations and also did not get any extension from the licencing authorities.

4. Even, the appellants, in their memo of appeal have not contended that such extension was subsequently given by JDFT. In fact till date there is nothing on record, even after a lapse of a period of about ten years, the appellants have not produced any evidence to show that the time for export was extended by JDFT authorities. As such we find no reasons to interfere with the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal is accordingly rejected.

(Order pronounced in open court)

(B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER (ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

iss