9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere earlier a 100% EOU vide LOP Dated 23.10.1990 and had commenced commercial production thereafter. They had imported capital goods free of customs duty and had also procured from domestic sources the indigenously manufactured capital goods free of Central Excise duty. Besides the capital goods, they had also imported free of custom duty the spare parts from time to time. On 01/04/04 on their application for debonding, the Development Commissioner gave in-principal approval for debonding. Thereafter the Jurisdictional Central Excise officer after checking their stock assessed the duty on the capital goods and inputs to be paid at the time of debonding and the total excise duty and custom duty so assessed was Rs. 1,08,83,399/-. This duty wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been used up during the period from 1996-97 to 2001-02, that by replacing the old and worn out parts of the machinery by the new spare parts, the value of the machinery does not increase, that since the spare parts, in question, were not in stock when the in-principle approval for debonding had been granted, no duty can be demanded on the same and that in view of the above submissions, the impugned order is not correct. 4. Shri Amresh Jain, the learned Departmental Representative, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner and emphasized that when the appellant have capitalized the spare parts, in question, there is double enrichment, as they have availed depreciation on the value of the spare parts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apital goods cannot be enhanced by the value of the spare parts used from time to time, even if the same have been capitalized. It is also seen that at the time of debonding, the Jurisdictional Inspector, Central Excise, after checking their records and stock, had determined the appellants duty liability and had communicated the same under his letter dated 10/04/04 and at that time also he had checked the account of receipt and consumption of the imported as well as indigenously procured spare parts. In view of this, the appellant cannot be accused of suppressing the relevant information from the Department and, therefore, no justification for invoking the extended period under proviso to Section 28 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and, as suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
