Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2016 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 74 - CESTAT HYDERABAD100% EOU - STP unit - Refund claim - denial of depreciation on the equipments used in the export of software after de-bonding of warehouse - recovery of duty on full value of the equipment - STP units - permission to import duty free infrastructural facility equipments vide notification No. 153/93-Cus dated 13-08-1993 - 100% EOU Bonded Warehouse - is the Department justified in demanding duty on the original value of the equipment, without allowing depreciation on the ground that said Notification No. 153/93-Cus does not have any specific provision for allowing Depreciation? - Held that: - the decision in the case of Kumar Housing Corporation Ltd Vs CCE Pune-III [2014 (12) TMI 895 - CESTAT MUMBAI] relied upon. Notifications 52/2003-Cus did take cognizance of the early obsolescence of capital goods related to software technology and in fact, extended depreciation at attractive terms. But just because No.153/21993 Cus is bereft of such a provision, it would not mean that capital goods imported by appellant in 2006, when cleared to DTA five years thence, in 2011, can be denied depreciation from originally imported value. The CBEC have issued a number of circulars clarifying the grant of deprecation on debonding of capital goods from EOU/EPZ/EHTP/STP units. Boards circular No.305/52/85-FTP dated 15-04-21987 prescribed the method for calculating the depreciation on capital goods permitted to be taken outside the units and the overall limit of depreciation was fixed at 70%. Subsequently the rates were revised. Appellant eligible for the depreciation as prescribed by the CBEC Circular applicable at the time of debonding - refund claim allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|