Judgment:
1.1.The miscellaneous application is for early hearing of the stay petition and grant of interim stay till the stay petition is disposed of. After hearing both sides, considering the nature of dispute, the stay petition and the appeal are taken up for disposal.
1.2.I find that a sum of Rs. 75,000/- out of a total demand of Rs. 1,57,393/- stands paid and therefore, waiving the pre-deposit of balance of dues as per the impugned order, I take up the appeal for final disposal.
2.1.The appellant obtained EPCG licence dated 03.05.2002 from the JDGFT Bangalore and imported materials at the concessional rate of duty. Duty foregone was to the extent of Rs. 1,57,393/-. It is the case of the appellant that they have totally a period of 8 years for fulfilling the export obligation. In fact they have fulfilled the entire export obligation by December 2008 and applied to the JDGFT authorities for issue of EODC. Meanwhile, even before completion of the time limit prescribed for fulfillment of export obligation, show-cause notice dated 17.12.2008 was issued by the original authority and order dated 26.11.2009 was issued confirming the demand of Rs. 1,57,393/-. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of the original authority vide order dated 16.06.2011.
2.2.He submits that they have since obtained the EODC certificate dated 02.05.2002 in File No. 07/36/021/00022/AM03 according to which they have fulfilled the export obligation in relation to the EPCG licence dated 03.05.2002.
2.3.It is also submitted that a detention notice proposing detention of goods to recover dues as per the impugned order has been issued vide a notice dated 09.02.2012.
3. Learned Superintendent (AR) reiterates the findings and reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals).
4.1.I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. The entire proceedings have been started on the ground that, in respect of goods imported under EPCG scheme, the export obligation has not been fulfilled. The Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the order on 16.06.2011 and the appellant claims that they have received the redemption letter dated 21.06.2011 evidencing fulfillment of export obligation. This letter was not available before the original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals).
4.2.In view of the above, I set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and that of adjudicating authority and remand the matter to the original authority for fresh consideration. The appellants are directed to produce the evidence relating to fulfillment of export obligation before the original authority.
5. Appeal is allowed by way of remand. Stay and miscellaneous applications are disposed of.