CC(ACU) Vs. URI CIVIL CONTRACTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal at the instance of the Revenue challenge is against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi dated 21.11.2002. The relevant facts are as follows:

(2.) THE respondent was awarded a contract by NHPC in 1989 to construct Uri Hydroelectric Project in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. For the construction of above project the respondent had imported certain goods including those cleared under Bill of Entry No. 234127 dated 24.6.93 against ad hoc exemption on executing a bond No. 368 dated 6.7.93 for an amount of Rs. 19,76,713. The respondent had undertaken to either re -export those goods or produce consumption certificate on completion of the project. It was the case of the respondent that after completing the project in 1997 vide letter No. DG 201 dated 22.7.97 they submitted the requisite proof of re -export/consumption of the impugned goods to the department. Consequent thereto the Assistant Commissioner of Customs cancelled the bond dated 6.7.93 on 14.8.97. Thereafter in 1999 a demand for an amount of Rs. 19,76,713 was made against the respondent by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs for the reason that the respondent had not produced documentary evidence as to whether they have fulfilled the obligations indicated in the bond. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) took the view that once the bonds were cancelled by the department on being satisfied about the compliance with the conditions contained therein, there is no basis for demanding the duty covered by the bond at a latter period.

(3.) WE are in full agreement with the view expressed by the Commissioner (Appeals). When the bonds were cancelled by the department, it has to be assumed that the officer was satisfied of the respondent's compliance with the conditions regarding their obligation under the bond. Much after such cancellation of the bond the office of the respondent itself was wound up. There are no materials available before us to show that the bond was cancelled by the department without examining the relevant factors. Under these circumstances, we find no merit in this appeal at the instance of the Revenue. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed.