Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2013 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 26 - CESTAT MUMBAI100% EOU - debonding - duty on capital goods - Eligibility for depreciation - what should be the value on which duty can be demanded on the capital goods and whether the appellant would be eligible for any depreciation or not – Held that:- No permission has been obtained by the assesse from the Development Commissioner and the Development Commissioner had also not renewed the LOP when it expired – In the absence of any such permission, the question of allowing any depreciation on the value of the capital goods does not arise – depreciation was permissible only when the capital goods were cleared after getting approval from the Development Commissioner for being taken to any other place in India in accordance with the EXIM policy. Duty demand on raw materials – Held that:- The quantity and value lying unutilized on the date of export of warehousing period was not forthcoming from the records - If any such raw materials were lying unutilized on the date of deemed removal - they had to be assessed to Customs duty on the original value of the importation but at the rate prevailing on the date of deemed removal - if the raw materials were consumed in the manufacture of goods exported, then the demand of duty will not arise at all – Only in respect of raw materials lying unutilized still remaining in the bonded premises, the question of demand on duty on raw materials would arise. Confiscation of goods u/s 111(o) – Redemption fine – Penalty u/s 112(a) - Held that:- Assesses had failed to fulfil the terms and conditions of the exemption - the goods were liable to confiscation u/s111(o) - Inasmuch as the assesse had been allowed to function as an EOU from April 2009 onwards - the imposition of a nominal fine in lieu of confiscation would suffice – assesse’s penalty was reduced – managing director’s Penalty was set aside. Duty on imported goods – Interest – Held that:- Appellant was liable to pay duty on the imported capital goods deemed to had been removed at the rate of duty prevailing on the date of deemed removal - Interest was also leviable on such amount of duty - Only if any such materials were lying in stock on the date of deemed removal, duty liability will have to be discharged at the rate prevailing on the date of deemed removal – matter remanded back to the adjudicatory authority for re computation of Demand – decided partly in favor of assesse.
|