Sea Gold Aqua Farms Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ...

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No 265-2006 dated 06/03/2007 passed by CCE&C(Appeals), Visakhapatnam]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE Shri JUSTICE G. RAGHURAM, PRESIDENT

HON'BLE Shri 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?

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?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

SEA GOLD AQUA FARMS LTD., 10-50-18/1 (15), 1ST FLOOR, SIRIPURAM TOWERS, SRIPURAM JUNCTION, VISAKHAPATNAM Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise ,Customs and Service Tax VISAKHAPATNAM-I NULL CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING PORT AREA VISAKHAPATNAM - 530035 ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)

Appearance:

None For the Appellant

Shri Ramesh Ram, AR For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 04/02/2015

Date of Decision: 04/02/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE Shri JUSTICE G. RAGHURAM, PRESIDENT

HON'BLE Shri B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 20277 / 2015

Per : B.S.V. MURTHY

Nobody is present on behalf of appellants. Facts as mentioned by the appellants in the appeal are as under:

The appellant was granted with a letter of permit by the Deveopment Commissioner, Export Processing Zone, Visakhapatnam to work under the EOU scheme. The appellant under the said scheme imported oil free pond aerators without payment of Customs duties. The appellant due to certain operational difficulties sought permission of the Development Commissioner to permit de-bonding of the EOU. The Development Commissioner allowed the request subject to payment of applicable duties on the imported goods. The appellant in the year 2000 cleared the imported goods available in EOU against an EPCG Licence bearing No.0930000080 dated 13.11.2000 on payment of five percent duty in terms of Customs Notification No.49/2000 dated 27.4.2000 and thus de-bonded the EOU. The appellant under the EPCG scheme is under the obligation to export frozen shrimps of FOB value of Rs.1,16,74,000/- (USD 260000) over a period of 8 years in four blocks in the following proportion:

I and II year - Nil III and IV year - 15% V and VI year - 35% VI and VIII year - 50%

The appellant in the first block period supplied to three parties viz. M/s Omsons Marines P.Ltd., M/s Gajula Exim P. Ltd. and M/s Navayuga Exports Ltd. who in-turn exported the goods under Shipping Bills Nos.348/23.1.2000, 346/23.1.2001 and 7214/27.12.2000 respectively. However, before the goods were cleared for export the exporters requested the Customs Authorities to endorse the EPCG Licence number on the face of the shipping bill. The Customs Authorities delayed to endorse the same citing some reason or other. The exporters fearing that their export orders would be cancelled if the shipment is delayed exported the goods without endorsing the EPCG Licence number on the face of the shipping bill.

2. From the facts itself it is quite clear that the appellants could not fulfill the export obligation cast on them and as a result they became liable to pay duty. In terms of EPCG licence, the appellant were to fulfill the export obligation for the value of Rs.1,16,74,000/- and this has to be fulfilled over a period of 8 years in 4 sub-blocks @ of nil 15%, 35% and 50% respectively. Appellants have also not produced Export Obligation Discharge Certificate from the Development Commissioner. In such a situation, the appellants have no case on merits and therefore appeal is rejected.

(Pronounced in court)

JUSTICE G. RAGHURAM PRESIDENT

B.S.V. MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER

M. Manjula.

3