9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Customs duty of Rs. 12,98,370/- and demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 26,925/-. After perusing the records and hearing both sides, we find that the present proceedings are directed against the Commissioner's order which was passed in a second round of litigation pursuant to this Tribunal's remand order vide Final Order Nos. 1528 to 1530/2010 dated 7.12.2010. We further note that, in the earlier round of litigation before this Tribunal, the appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and this deposit remains. 3. The aforesaid demand of Customs duty is on capital goods which had been procured by the appellant without payment of duty by way of import in terms of Notification No. 196/94-Cus dated 08.12.1994 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plea that the goods were available in the EOU premises. During the submissions before the Hon'ble CESTAT it was pleaded that they submitted before the Commissioner that these were available in the premises and if required the Adjudicating authority can cause examination. On verification of the record, it is seen that no such plea has been made before my predecessor Commissioner. Even before me they had not produced any proof that they had made such plea earlier. In fact, what was stated in reply to the notice that these goods were covered by the De-bonding Order No. 700/2005 dated 06.5.2005 of Honble CESTAT. But they agreed during the course of personal hearing dated 22.9.2005, that the capital items covered under the show-cause notice we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o consequence. If any goods would have entered the bonded premises and the Customs authorities cannot be party to that. In view of the fact that the goods were not available on the date of verification and their exact date of removal is unknown and further given the fact that such removal was in violation of the conditions of the Notification No. 194/94-Cus., no depreciation is permissible. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant who has claimed prima facie case against the demand of Customs duty, and the learned Additional Commissioner (AR) who has opposed the above claim of the counsel, we are of the view that the appellant has not made out prima facie case against the demand of Customs duty. The learned Commissioner has stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 009 which was passed in Company Petition No. 74 of 2006, in the matter of M/s Suvarna Aqua Farms & Exports Ltd. and their Secured Creditors. The Hon'ble High Court's order purported to secure the assessee's dues to State Bank of India and, accordingly, to compel the assessee to liquidate such dues by selling their property. A minimum amount of Rs. 50 lacs was directed to be deposited with the Bank and upon such deposit, the Bank was liable to release the title deeds pertaining to the said property. The balance of sale proceeds was also directed to be deposited with the Bank. The learned counsel, nevertheless, is unable to tell us whether the directions of the Hon'ble High Court were duly complied with. However, he refers to an Affidavit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
