SANJAY PARASRAMPURIA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORT)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the CESTAT was justified in directing the appellants to make pre-deposit of the duties/penalties as the case may be, for entertaining the appeal against order-in-original passed in the case of each of the appellants is the question raised in these appeals. The appellants had obtained 106 advance licenses from time to time with an obligation to fulfill the export obligation by importing duty free raw materials under those licenses. As the appellants failed to furnish documents to show that the export obligation has been fulfilled, the adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand in respect of imports made under the 106 advance licenses.

(2.) Challenging the aforesaid orders, the appellants filed appeals before the CESTAT. Before the CESTAT, the appellants could produce documents to show fulfillment of export obligation in respect of 69 advance licenses. However, the appellants could not produce documents relating to the remaining 37 advance licenses. As a result, the Tribunal directed the appellants to make the pre-deposit of duties/penalty [, OMPRAKASH PARASRAMPURIA v. C C (EXPORT PROMOTION), 2011 264 ELT 427]. Thereafter, Miscellaneous Applications were filed by the appellants stating that subsequent to the order of pre-deposit, the appellants could retrieve from their files which would establish that exports had been effected under the 37 advance licenses. As these documents were not furnished earlier, the appellants sought recalling of the pre-deposit order. The Tribunal declined to entertain the Miscellaneous Applications. Hence, these appeals are filed.

(3.) Although the appellants had failed to produce documents to establish that exports under the 37 advance licenses have been effected, before the Tribunal passing the pre-deposit order, in view of the fact that the appellants have subsequently produced documents to show that the exports have been effected and it is claimed that the exports effected are more than the export obligation required to be fulfilled as against the imports under the said 37 advance licenses, in our opinion it would be just and proper to set aside the pre-deposit order and direct the Tribunal to pass fresh order in that behalf. Accordingly, the impugned order of pre-deposit passed in all these, appeals are quashed and set aside and the matter is restored to the file of CESTAT for fresh consideration in accordance with law. All the appeals are disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. All the contentions of both the parties are kept open.