[Order per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T) (Oral)]. - There is a duty demand of about Rs. 2.6 crores and penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs. These flow from a finding that the appellants failed to satisfy the export obligation in respect of steel imported under DEEC licences. The finding is that, according to the Input-Output Norms, against import of 1377 MT, the appellant was required to export 1059 MT of Steel utensils, while the actual export was only 764 MT. The appellants’ explanation was that there was no diversion of imported materials and that the differential quantity has been manufactured and exported out of indigenously produced materials. During the hearing, learned Consultant for the appellants also submitted that higher amount of wastage was within the power of the DGFT authorities to over look. It is also submitted that demand of duty would be entirely unjustifiable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Smt. R. Bhagyadevi, learned SDR would contend that since the appellant had failed to export the goods according to the norms and also failed to produce condonation from the DGFT authorities, the demand is justified.
3. A perusal of the records shows that there is no finding about diversion of imported materials for any purposes than the export production. If the production was not within the norms that was within the discretion of the DGFT authorities. In the circumstances, the appellant has a prima facie case in his favour. Prayer for waiver pre-deposit is allowed and the recovery is stayed, till disposal of the appeal.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
Comments