9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3/1981, without payment of customs duty. The appellant applied for de-bonding of EOU on 13.5.1997 and proposed to convert their unit to a unit under EPCG scheme under Customs Notification No.29/1997-Cus. The de-bonding of the unit was done on 21.6.1999. At the time of de-bonding, the customs authorities raised demands towards customs and central excise duties payable on the capital and other goods in terms of the Customs Notification No.13/81. However, the liability of duty on the five refrigerated trucks imported earlier into the EOU was not decided. With a view to allow migration of the appellant s EOU from 100% EOU scheme to EPCG scheme, the appellant executed a bond with bank guarantee as security for the value of Rs. 22,42,000/- (suppo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the show-cause notice is limited to enforcement of the bond. (iii) The departmental authorities have travelled beyond the scope of show-cause notice in deciding the issue of eligibility of Notification No.13/81. 3. Heard both Shri Raghavendra B. Hajer, learned advocate for the appellant and Shri J. Harish, learned AR for the Revenue. 4. The learned advocate reiterated his grounds and prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 5. The learned DR on the other hand supported the decision of the authorities below. He argued that on merits the appellant is not entitled to duty free import under Notification No.13/81 for the refrigerated trucks inasmuch as they cannot be considered as capital goods . He placed reliance on the case law Inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.13/81 Cus. dated 9.2.81 as amended vide B/E Nos.2380/26.11.93, 2383/29.11.93, 15515/5.4.95. The same shall be paid to the President of India, i.e., the difference between the duty ordinarily payable without any exemption and duty payable under the EPCG Scheme." On expiry of the bank guarantee, the department initiated action for recovery by issue of show-cause notice dated 1.6.2000 proposing demand of duty to the extent of Rs. 22,42,000/- by way of customs duty. Duties stand confirmed by the original authority as well as upheld by the Commissioner (A). The grievance of the appellant is that they were not put on notice as to why the benefit of EOU Notification No.13/81-Cus. is not available for import of refrigerated trucks. They were o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perishable sea food. But the connotation of the term capital goods is to cover plant, machinery, equipment or accessories required for manufacture of goods including refrigeration equipment. But from the use of refrigerated trucks by the appellant, it cannot be said that the said use is in the nature of capital goods and cannot be covered by the Notification No.13/81-Cus. In this regard the decision cited by the learned AR in the case of International Creative Foods Ltd. (supra) is squarely covering the issue against the appellant. 7. In line with the above discussions, we conclude that the issue is to be decided against the appellant both on merits as well as on law. The appeal accordingly is dismissed and impugned order upheld. ( Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
