CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. – I Customs Appeal No. 26260 of 2013 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No.01/2013-Adjn (Cus)(Commr) dated 21.01.2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad)

M/s Sri Havisha Hospitality & .. APPELLANT Infrastructure Ltd., (Formerly M/s Shri Shakti Lpg Ltd.,)

4^th Floor, Venus Plaza, Begumpet, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500 016.

VERSUS Commissioner of Customs .. RESPONDENT Hyderabad - Customs Kendriya Shulk Bhavan, L.B Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500 004.

APPEARANCE:

Shri T. Pradyoth, Advocate for the Appellant.

Shri M. Anukathir Surya, Authorized Representative for the Respondent.

CORAM: HON’BLE Mr. A.K. JYOTISHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

HON’BLE Mr. ANGAD PRASAD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

FINAL ORDER No. A/30095/2026 Date of Hearing: 06.01.2026 Date of Decision: 25.02.2026 [ORDER PER: A.K. JYOTISHI]

M/s Sri Havisha Hospitality and Infrastructure Ltd., (formerly known as Shri Shakti LPG Ltd.,) (hereinafter referred to as appellant) are in appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 21.01.2013 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in respect of show cause notice dated 31.05.2001 (impugned order). 2. The issue, in brief, is that the appellant had imported capital goods valued at Rs. 4,20,26,671/- vide Bill of Entry No. 582 dated 24.12.1996 in terms of Notification No. 28/97-Cus dated 01.04.1997. The Department noticed that the appellant had taken a license for import in terms of Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme. The said import was subject to the condition that the appellant would be exporting LPG Cylinders worth Rs. 33,27,38,500/-, within a period of five years from the date of issue of license. The Department noted that the capital goods were imported vide said Bill of Entry No. 582, dated 24.12.1996 and cleared under ex-bound for home consumption vide Ex-bone Bill of Entry No. 1201 dated 17.08.1998 on payment of concessional duty of Rs. 53,59,498/- in terms of Notification No. 28/97. Further, Department noticed that since they had not fulfilled the export obligation, as required in terms of Customs Notification read with Para 38 of EXIM Policy 1992-97, the imported goods were seized on 16.05.2001 and after further investigation, the appellants were asked to explain why the said goods should not be confiscated under Section 111(o) and why the benefit of Notification No. 28/97 should not be denied and differential duty be recovered in terms of condition of the notification and bond executed in this regard.

3. After adjudication, the goods were confiscated with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 50 lakhs. An amount of Rs. 1,08,68,097/- was also demanded as differential duty and a penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs was also imposed in terms of Section 112(a). The appellant went to the Tribunal, against the first adjudication order dated 08.03.2002, where the Tribunal, interalia, observed that DGFT had extended the time for fulfilling export obligation up to 02.10.2002 and remanded back the matter to the Adjudicating Authority. In remand proceedings order dated 04.11.2003 was passed, whereby, similar order was again passed. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant again went to the Tribunal, which again, vide it’s order dated 02.06.2005 remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for issuing a suitable order after expiry of licensing period i.e. 01.10.2008 and with certain other directions. The matter was again re-heard and an order dated 15.05.2009 was passed in which the confiscation was again upheld, however, redemption fine and the penalty were modified. The matter again came before the Tribunal, which again remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority for reconsidering the issue in the light of the extension granted by the DGFT authorities up to 03.06.2012. The Adjudicating Authority again after taking into account various submissions passed an order dated 21.01.2013 (impug