ELEGANT CRAFTS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER hearing both the sides, we find that Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal for non -compliance with the stay order passed by him directing the appellants to deposit an amount of Rs. 5,47,383/ -, out of the total confirmed duty of Rs. 8,77,567/ -, as a condition of hearing their appeal.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant had filed Bill of Entry No. 2049 dated 23 -4 -1993 for clearance of 25.000 MTs. Midsole -Insole material imported as consumables for leather industry at the declared value of Rs. 8,77,567/ - and had sought duty exemption under Notification No. 224/85 -Cus., dated 9 -7 -1985, as they were actual user of the imported goods. The test report of the imported goods revealed that it was PVC leather cloth. End Use Bond was obtained from the appellant, as per Standing Order dated 22 -11 -1989 issued by Customs House, Bombay. Under the end use Bond dated 30 -4 -1993, the appellant had undertaken to deliver a duly signed end use certificate from the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities within twelve months from the date of import. The appellant, in spite of several reminders, did not submit the end use certificate. A demand cum show cause notice therefore, was issued to the appellant to pay the differential customs duty of Rs. 10,94,765/ - for non -production of end use certificate, which was confirmed vide OIO dated 21 -6 -1995. Being aggrieved with the said OIO, the appellant had filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who under his OIA dated 25 -3 -2008 set -aside the said O -I -O and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. Several letters were written to the appellant asking them to furnish end use certificate or else to pay the amount of Rs. 10,94,765/ - along with interest for such failure. The adjudicating authority, vide the impugned order, confirmed the demand of Rs. 10,94,765/ - along with interest under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1963 for non -production of End Use Certificate.

(3.) LEARNED consultant appearing for the appellants places before us the relevant Notification No. 224/85 -Cus., dated 9 -7 -1985 and draws our specific attention to the fact that there is no requirement in the said notification as regards the satisfaction of the Central Excise authorities about the use of the imported goods in the leather industry. Further, the notification nowhere provides execution of any bond at the time of import of the goods or production of any end use certificate by the importer. In any case, he submits that they have entered into a bond at the time of import of the material which require them to produce end use certificate or a certificate from any other person indicating the use of the material in the leather industry. They have produced Chartered Accountants certificate along with an affidavit dated 18 -3 -2000 to support their stand that the imported materials have been used in the manufacture of leather goods. Further, the final product i.e. leather products stands exported by them, which fact is not disputed by the Revenue. It is also contention of the learned consultant that they have approached the jurisdictional Central Excise officer for grant of end use certificate, which does not stand given by them on the ground that the assessee is a small scale manufacturer and not registered with the Central Excise department. As such, he submits that the condition of production of end use certificate, which stands introduced by the Revenue itself, is impracticable and impossible for them to be fulfilled.