Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (11) TMI 1116 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

2016 (11) TMI 1116 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - TMI - Clearance of goods under DEEC Scheme - import of Fourspar powder - goods warehoused and on expiry of wrehousing period, the goods were instructed to be cleared - denial of DEEC scheme - Held that: - reliance placed on the decision of the case of the case of M/s. KLJ Plastics Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [1999 (11) TMI 286 - CEGAT, MADRAS] where it was held that the DEEC scheme does not disentitle them from its benefit merely because b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Bonding period has expired. Therefore, that situation is to be dealt with only under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. - Denial of DEEC scheme not justified - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - C/189-190/2008 - A/11404-11405/2016 - Dated:- 27-7-2016 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) and Mr. P.M. Saleem, Member (Technical) For Appellant (s) : Shri Paritosh Gupta, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Shri S.N. Gohil, Authorised Representative ORDER The brief facts of the case are th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

M/s. Gujarat Fluro Chemical Limited, also filed appeal (No. 326/2007) against order-in-original No. KDL/AC.VIII/FIG/ 498/2007 dated 27.08.2007 denying them permission to clear the said goods under DEEC scheme. All the said three appeals including the main appeal 280/2007 were disposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. OIA-87/2008-KDL/COMMR-A-/AHD dated 24.03.2008. Aggrieved by the said OIA, M/s. BGH Exim Limited is before us in the instant appeals. 2. The appellan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

orter was permitted to clear the above warehoused cargo immediately by filling ex-bond Bills of Entry on payment of appropriate customs duty and interest as applicable from the date of ware housing to the date of actual clearance of cargo from the ware house. M/s. BGH Exim Limited filed Bills of Entry No. 198074, 198078 and 198080 to 198088, all dated 29.6.2007 and cleared the goods on payment of duty. The Assistant Commissioner also imposed penalty of ₹ 5000/- on the appellant. The said b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

KLJ Plastics Limited - 2002 (193) ELT 266, affirming the decision of this Tribunal -2000 (117) ELT 108 (Tri). The Tribunal in the said case held that, after expiry of ware housing period, clearance under DEEC scheme is not permissible. The Commissioner (Appeals) also modified the order-in-original to the extent that interest will be charged as per provisions of Section 61 of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, the appeal No. 325/2007 filed by the appellant for amendment of Bills of Entry by sub .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s, it is observed that M/s. BGH Exim Limited filed into-Bond Bills of Entry on 03.06.2005. They were permitted to do so for a period of 12 months. However, they failed to clear the goods within the stipulated period of warehousing. They submitted a letter dated 21.6.2007 much after the expiry of warehousing period, showing readiness to clear the goods on payment of customs duty and interest and requested for waiver of show cause notice and personal hearing in the matter. The Assistant Commission .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.VII/07 dated 18.07.2007 that it was not permissible to file ex-bond Bills of Entry by the said customer, relying upon the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. KLJ Plastics Limited (supra). We find that the Tribunal in the case of M/s. KLJ Plastics Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai - 2000 (117) ELT 108 (Tribunal) held as follows:- 12. We cannot also accept ld. Advocate s argument? that the DEEC scheme does not disentitle them from its benefit merely because bond perio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version