TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ital goods and other raw materials by availing the benefit of Notification No. 13/81-Cus., dated 9-2-1981. Since the appellants could not fulfil the export obligations, Revenue proceeded against them for recovery of duty on the goods imported duty free. The Adjudicating Authority, in the OIO dated 29-12-1999, confirmed a demand of Customs duty of Rs. 2,01,11,072/- from the appellant. Further, Central Excise duty of Rs. 2,40,356/- was demanded under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Interest under Section 28AB at the rate of 20% was also demanded. A penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- under Section 112 and Rs. 25,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was imposed on the appellants. Aggrieved by the above order, the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eral Security) Bond for Rs. 50,000/- towards the realization of the duties, interest amounts and penalties demanded. The appellants are highly aggrieved over the impugned order. Hence, they have come before this Tribunal for relief. 3. Shri B.V. Kumar, the learned Advocate, appeared for the appellants and Shri K. Sambi Reddy, the learned JDR, for the Revenue. 4. The learned Advocate made the following submissions :- The learned Advocate informed the Bench that even though the appellants could not fulfil completely the export obligations, they had actually exported for the period from 1-1-1993 to 31-12-1997 finished goods to the extent of Rs. 1,65,42,112/- FOB. He also invited our attention to the Board's Circular No 29/2003-Cus., date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 004 (173) E.L.T. 100 (Tri. - Bang.). (e) Noel Agritech Ltd. v. CCE, Mangalore - 2006 (195) E.L.T. 88 (T) = 2006 (73) RLT 259 (CESTAT-Ban.) (f) M/s. Transparent Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Belgaum - Final Order No. 570/2006 dated 9-3-2006 (Tri. - Bang.) - 2006 (200) E.L.T. 118 (T) (g) Suvarna Aqua Farm Exports Ltd. v. CC - 2005 (190) E.L.T. 284 (T). Depreciation on goods imported duty free, has to be given up to the date of duty payment and not the date of de-bonding. 5.The learned JDR submitted that there is no provision in the Notification for giving benefit to the appellants in cases of partial fulfilment of export obligations. Moreover, such a benefit was incorporated only in Notification 52/2003 dated 31-3-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thout taking into account the depreciated value. This is not correct. In the present case, the capital goods have been put to use by the appellants. Therefore, at the time of de-bonding, duty can be demanded only on the depreciated value. The depreciation will be till the date of payment of duty as decided in Suvarna Aqua Farm Exports Ltd. (cited supra), as decided by this Bench. We do not agree that the above benefits cannot be given to the Units as Notification No. 52/2003 and 22/2003 both dated 31-3-2003 are only having prospective effect in view of the various judicial decisions of the Tribunal. Further, the non-fulfilment of export obligation is on account of the business conditions prevailing at that time and not on account of any m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
