Per: M.M. PARTHIBAN

This appeal has been filed by M/s. CEAT Limited, Mumbai (herein after, referred to as “the appellants”, for short) assailing the Order-in-Original C.A.O. No. 16/2025-26/CAC/CC(E)/AH/ADJN-EXP dated 22.05.2025 (herein after, referred to as “the impugned order”) passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export), Mumbai Zone-I, Mumbai.

2.1 Brief facts of the case, leading to this appeal, are summarized herein below:

2.2 The appellants herein are engaged inter alia, in the manufacturer of various types of automobile tyres at their different manufacturing plants in India. The appellants were issued with multiple Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme Licenses/Authorisation for import of capital goods. The objective of the EPCG Scheme is to facilitate import of capital goods for producing quality goods and services and enhance India’s manufacturing competitiveness. EPCG Scheme allows import of capital goods (except those specified in negative list in Appendix 5 F) for pre- production, production and post-production at zero customs duty. Capital goods imported under EPCG Authorisation for physical exports are also exempt from IGST and Compensation Cess, leviable thereon under the sub- section (7) and sub-section (9) respectively, of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as provided in the notification No. 22/2013-Customs dated 18.04.2023 issued by Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance. Under Zero duty EPCG scheme, the appellants were issued with six Authorisation/ Licenses viz., No. 0330036078/2/12/00 dated 13.06.2013; No. 0330036175/2/12/00 dated 21.06.2013; No. 0330036289/2/12/00 dated 04.07.2013; No. 0330036530/2/12/00 dated 06.08.2013; No. 0330036733/2/12/00 dated 05.09.2013 and No. 0330037284/2/12/00 dated 21.11.2013 for import of capital goods against export of tyres specified therein. The appellants had imported capital goods totally valued at Rs.7,76,83,519/- for which import duty foregone was Rs.1,79,12,579/- , by executing bond for an amount of Rs.5,01,55,222/- undertaking to fulfil export obligation in terms of Section 143 of the Customs Act, 1962.

2.3 Since the department had found that the appellants have failed to produce Capital Goods Installation Certificate upon its importation and have also not submitted the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) in terms of the notification dated 18.04.2013, a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 07.10.2024 was issued for demand of duty foregone amount of Rs.1,79,12,579/- along with interest in terms of bond executed under Section 143 ibid, with a proposal for confiscation of imported goods under Section 111(o) ibid and for imposition of penalty on the appellants under Section 112(a) ibid.

2.4 The said SCN dated 07.10.2024 was adjudicated by the learned Commissioner of Customs, in confirmation of all the proposals made in the SCN by issue of the impugned order dated 22.05.2025. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellants had preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that during the adjudication of the case, the appellants had stated before the learned Commissioner vide their letter dated 13.05.2025, that they had already fulfilled the requisite export obligation as per EPCG Authorisation and they had also filed necessary application before the DGFT authorities at Mumbai for issue of EO redemption certificate by their letter dated 13.01.2020 and EODC is awaited from DGFT. Upon receipt of the same, they would be submitting it to the jurisdictional customs authorities for cancellation of bond and sought for more time for undertaking such process. He further stated that in the impugned order, the learned Commissioner has held that installation certificate issued by the designated authority is not submitted by the appellants and they have failed to show that export obligation has been fulfilled by them, and on such basis, he had confirmed the adjudged demands. As opposed to