(A.K. Sikri and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.)
M/s. Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. _______ Appellant
v.
Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur ________ Respondent
Civil Appeal No(s). 626/2007, decided on October 13, 2015
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. The appellant/assessee is engaged in manufacturing Polyster Filament Yarn, Polyproplene Filament Yarn etc. It had imported capital goods under EPCG Scheme and obtained the benefit of Notification No. 160/92-CUS dated 20.04.1992. On the basis of the said Notification, the assessee did not pay any import duty on the aforesaid imported goods but furnished a bond/undertaking to export finished products equivalent to four times of CIF value of goods imported within period of five years from the date of issue of license i.e. 02.04.1993. It appears that the assessee fulfilled export obligations only to the extent of 80% within the said five years period which was provided for fulfilling the said export obligations. He could not fulfill the remaining obligations. There were certain circulars of the Department which provided extension of time for fulfilling such obligations. As per those circulars, the request for extension can be made along with requisite bank guarantee for the unfulfilled export obligations together with 24% simple interest thereof from the date of import up to 30th September, 2001 within 60 days from the date of the said circulars/public notice. The assessee applied for extension but without furnishing any bank guarantee as required, along with letter of request for extension. For this reason, the extension was not given to the assessee.
2. The assessee, however, put an alternate case that it had two other units/divisions viz. M/s. Parasrampuria International and Parasfab International. It was contended that if the exports made by these divisions of the assessee are taken into consideration, then the assessee has fulfilled the export obligations. However, the assessee could not satisfactorily explain as to whether there was any export made by the aforesaid two divisions within the original period of five years i.e. upto 1.4.1998. If these two divisions have made any export after 1.4.1998 this obviously could not have been taken into consideration in the absence of extension given to the assessee.
3. There was another contention raised before the Tribunal viz. as per para 6.5(ii) of the Export and Import Policy, the export by a third party could be allowed. On that basis, certain exports made by the third party in terms of said para were sought to be included by the assessee in order to show that it had fulfilled the entire export obligations. However, the condition in this para is that the export has to be in the name of EPCG licence holder. It is specifically taken note of by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment that the exports which were purportedly shown did not bear any such EPCG licence and, therefore, rightly rejected the contention of the assessee even on this aspect.
4. We, thus, do not find any error in the main order of the Tribunal or in the order dismissing the rectification application.
5. We may record that in the present appeal, the assessee had challenged the order only passed in the application for rectification. However, we have still gone into the entire gamut of the dispute and on merits, as mentioned above, the order of the Tribunal is without any error.
6. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
———
