Lindt Export vs Union of India

This appeal is directed against an order dated 26th March, 2007 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (''Tribunal''), Principal Bench, New Delhi in Appeal No. 609-612 of 2006.

By its order dated December 29th, 2006 2011 (269) ELT 88 the Tribunal required the Appellants to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 2.5 crores as a condition for the hearing of the appeal filed by it. The said order was challenged by the Appellants in W.P. (C) No. 2332 of 2007. Meanwhile, since the Appellants did not deposit the said amount, the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal by the impugned order dated March 26th, 2007.

We heard the matter on 5th October, 2007 and were inclined to dismiss the appeal. While we were in the process of dictating the order, learned counsel for the Appellants sought some time to deposit the amount in terms of the order dated December 29th, 2006 passed by the Tribunal. In the first instance, we required learned counsel for the Appellants to take instructions whether his client would be prepared to deposit Rs.,1 crore within a week.

Today we are informed by, learned counsel that it is not possible for the Appellants to deposit the amount as suggested by us and that the Appellants would require at least two or three months to deposit that amount. We are not inclined to grant any further time to Appellants and, therefore, we are proceeding to pass the order dismissing the appeal.

The allegation against the Appellants is that they were exporting garments and grossly overvaluing those garments probably to obtain benefits on the basis of the value of the exports.

The Respondents found that the Appellants were sending the goods to Moscow via Finland. Although the goods may have left India and reached the destination, they were the Appellants received drawback benefits to the extent of Rs. 22 crores. On this basis the Revenue raised a demand against the Appellants for Rs. 22 crores and then confirmed it after adjudication. Consequently, the Appellants were required to return that money but did not do so.

Against the order requiring the Appellants to refund the drawback amount, they preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which as already noticed required them to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 2.5 crores as a condition for hearing the appeal. Since the Appellants did not deposit the amount, the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 26th March, 2007 dismissed the appeal.

Given the facts and circumstances of the case as noticed hereinabove, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 26th March, 2007 or even the order dated 29th December, 2006 passed by the Tribunal concerning the pre-deposit. The Appellants have enriched themselves by Rs. 22 crores and could have surely deposited Rs. 2.5 crores as required by the Tribunal.

No substantial question of law arises for determination.

Dismissed.