Heard.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by Customs, Excise & Service
Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai (in short 'CESTAT') allowing
the appeal filed by the appellant.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
Appellant acquired and/or purchased transferable Value Based Advance
Licenses (in short 'VABAL') including a license dated 19.1.1993 i94ssued in the name
of M/s. Amar Taran Exports, New Delhi. Same was purchased on 20.4.1994.
Appellant on the basis of that imported consignment vide Bill of Entry no. 881 dated
30.3.1994. Same was allowed duty free allowance. By show cause notice dated
04.03.1999 appellant was called upon to show cause why an amount of Rs. 16,74,702/-
could not be recovered and demanded in terms of proviso to Section 28(1) of the
Customs Act, 1962 (in short
the 'Act') for alleged contravention of certain conditions of Notification No. 203/92-
Cus dated 19.05.1992. Noticee denied the allegations. However, Commissioner of
Customs (Import) confirmed the demand along with interest and penalty of Rupees
One lakh. Same was held to be jointly payable by the original license holder and
licensee. It was held that goods were liable in confiscation under Section 111 of the
Act. As the goods were not available penalties of Rs. 3 lakhs and Rs. 1 lakh were
levied under Section 112 (a) of the Act.
In view of divergence of views, the matter was referred to a larger Bench of
the Tribunal.
The Tribunal inter alia held as follows:
“Hence, the satisfaction arrived at in the above
manner is final and binding on the customs department. The Customs
department cannot compel the appellants importer, who are the
transferee, to once again prove that the export obligation has been
fulfilled by the original licence-holder in accordance with the
notification and without availing input stage credit”
“ The transferee cannot be called upon to fulfill the condition
(v) (a) of the Notification No. 203/92-Cus. It is the original licencee,
who has to satisfy the above referred condition, but not the transferee
of the licence. In the result, the reference is answered accordingly”.
In this appeal challenge is to the aforesaid conclusions. Learned counsel for
the respondent pointed out that no role was ascribed to it in the show cause notice.
It is seen that in view of the fact that in the show cause notice issued on
4.3.1999, there was no reference to the alleged infraction of M/s. Amar Taran Exports, the transferor of the license in question. The judgment of the CESTAT does not
suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. The appeal is dismissed.
New Delhi, April 29, 2008.