Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals News SMS Articles Highlights
← Previous Next →
  • Contents
  • Cases Cited


User Login
Stay sign in     

Forget password        New User/ Regiser


Our database contains Statutory Provisions, Notifications, Circulars / Trade Notices, Forms, Tariff, Schedules etc. and case laws on various topics.

Large number case laws include cases from Supreme Court, High Courts, Tribunals, Advance Rulings Authority related to various laws including, Direct Taxes, Indirect Taxes and corporate laws are being updated on daily basis. Forward linking and Backward linking of cases laws (i.e. cited case laws, referred case laws) is also being done for each reference.

Landmark cases / Importance cases which has been referred in another cases are also being updated on daily basis for easy reference and use.

Topics Covered by us:   Income Tax, DTAA, Wealth Tax and Other Direct Tax related Provisions, Benami Transactions, Money-Laundering (PMLA), Goods and Services Tax (CGST, IGST, UTGST, SGST, Cess, etc.), Customs, FEMA, SEZ and FTP, Companies Law, Insolvency & Bankruptcy, etc., Finance Acts, Finance Bills and Others and Service Tax, Central Excise, Cenvat Credit, CST etc.

Note: Statutory Provisions, Notifications, Tariff Tables etc. are being updated from time to incorporate latest amendments.

Additional Features: we also provide subscription free services such as Discussion Forum, Articles, News, Highlights of important update etc.

We strive continuously to provide latest and updated information.



2018 (2) TMI 283

Head Note / Extract:
100% EOU - Principles of Natural Justice - main ground of challenge by the appellant in the present Appeal is that the Writ Court did not appreciate the issue in proper prospective, as the issue pending before the 1st respondent, as it stood, while the matter was to be heard finally by the 1st respondent, on 05.04.2016 was with regard to the demand of duty of ₹ 2,92,01,610/- on mould and as to whether claim of 90% of depreciation was allowable?

Held that: - The appellant has sought settlement on the admitted liability, and prayed for immunity provided under the law. The direct answer to the grounds raised by the appellant are that even during the preliminary proceedings, wherein an interim order was passed by the respondents, at no point of time, the department has accepted that there is no liability towards the duty on raw materials. In fact, on the submission made by the appellant, at various points of time, when the appellant was assailing against the liability on raw materials, it could be seen from the records that the case of the appellant that the machinery imported was found to be old and unused machinery and because of the wrong supply of sub-standard machines, the appellant could not produce the goods and fulfill the export obligation, in which case, the appellant should have immediately informed the authorities regarding the same, which the appellant failed to do so.

It is a clear case and is also admitted by the appellant before the authority that the goods were never lost or destroyed, but they become unfit for consumption, since they were not put into use by the appellant. Besides that the appellant failed to inform the department about stoppage of production at any point of time. When the officers verified stocks, they found shortage of stocks, which the appellant admitted and also paid duty on such quantities of shortage. The authorities below have appreciated the aspect of depreciation of value of capital goods at 90% of the value in terms of CBEC Circular 43/91-Cus. dated 26.06.1998 and accordingly, ordered the appellant to deposit the admitted liability of ₹ 10,17,283/-, which is a direct answer to the grounds raised by the appellant against the order passed by the Writ Court.

The letter/submission dated 10.05.2016 is the reply/submission filed by the Jurisdictional Commissioner against the letter/submission of the appellant dated 25.04.2016. The aforesaid submissions of both the appellant and the revenue have been extracted as 'post hearing submissions of the applicant dated 25.04.2016' and 'post hearing submissions of the jurisdictional commissioner dated 10.05.2016' and have been discussed in detail by the Settlement Commission in the order dated 25.05.2016. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that there is violation of principles of natural justice, cannot be accepted.

The Settlement Commission has exercised its jurisdiction properly, under Section 127F(1) of the Customs Act, by going through the factual aspects, as well as the legal position, and exercised discretion and allowed 90% depreciation on capital goods and directed the appellant to deposit the admitted liability of ₹ 10,17,283/- - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.


← Previous Next →




Discussion Forum
what is new what is new

Let's just recapitulate:

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.