Antony Dominic, J. 1. This appeal is filed against Annexure I order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore. The appellant is a 100% export oriented unit. They were allowed to import capital goods worth `449 lakhs with export obligation. According to the appellant, they have imported only capital goods worth `94 lakhs. Although time for complying with the export obligation was extended, the appellant could not fulfil the same. Further request made by the appellant for extension of time was turned down by the Director of Software Technology Park of India and penalty was also imposed. Following this, respondent initiated action for recovery of the customs duty payable on the capital goods imported and the demand was finally confirmed by Annexure F order. Aggrieved by that order, appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal along with an application for waiver of pre-
Cus.A.4/14 2 deposit of duty payable. That was considered and Annexure I order was passed, where the Tribunal took the view that the appellant has failed to establish a prima facie case and directed that the amount payable under Annexure F should be remitted. It is aggrieved by this order, the appeal is filed.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel for the respondent.
3. Although the learned counsel for the appellant raised a contention before us that the export obligation has been partially fulfilled, we see that such a contention was not raised either before the adjudication officer or before the Tribunal when their application for waiver of pre-deposit was considered. In such circumstances, we are not going to act upon that submission made for the first time before this Court.
4. Waiver of pre-deposit can be sought for only if a prima facie case and undue hardship are established. In so far as this case is concerned, when the export Cus.A.4/14 3 obligation is not fulfilled, the liability for payment of customs duty is automatically attracted. It was therefore that the Tribunal took the view that the appellant did not have a prima facie case. This view of the Tribunal, on the facts disclosed, does not amount to any illegality which calls for interference.
In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge.
kkb.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, Judge.