9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 907X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that the main appellant was granted a licence for setting up a 100% EOU for providing infrastructure facility for STP unit under the Software Technology Park Scheme in Noida. The appellant applied for Private Customs Bonded Warehouse Licence, which was granted under Notification No. 153/93-CUS dated 13/08/1993. The appellant executed bond B-17 for a sum of Rs. 1.5 crores and also furnished a bank guarantee of sum of Rs. 7.50 lakhs. The appellant imported air conditioning equipment and generating set without payment of duty availing the benefit of Custom Notification No. 153/93-CUS dated 13/08/1993. The appellant took a loan of Rs. 40 crores from Vijaya Bank for construction of building for housing STP units. Building was constructed. Impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration of STP unit could not be commenced. In the meantime, the installment of the loan availed from Vijaya Bank became payable and the bank illegally declared the appellants as NPA, thereafter the proceedings were initiated under Securitization Act and taken over the possession of land and building in which the imported equipments were already installed. The bank further sold the property on auction on 05/12/2011. The action of the bank was challenged before Debt Recovery Tribunal and Appellate Debt Recovery Tribunal, but without any success. The appellant informed to the Department on 04/05/2012 about the auction of the property and also on 14/12/2012. Thereafter on 01/07/2013 informing the Department of dismissal of their case from Debt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... executed by the appellant has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mediwell Hospital and Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 425 (S.C.), therefore, under Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962, the proceedings were initiated against the appellants and the appellants failed to fulfill their export obligation. In that circumstances duty is rightly demanded from the appellant and penalties were also imposed correctly. 5. Heard the parties considered the submissions. 6. In this case, it is an admitted fact that appellant is 100% EOU and imported the equipments availing the benefit of Notification No. 153/93-CUS dated 13/08/1993 without payment of duty. It is also an admitted fact that appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the appellant placed an order for supply of machine and installation thereof, as supplier of the machine went in liquidation, therefore, the machine could not be installed. In that case also, the duty was also demanded. Therefore, the decision in the said case is of no help to the appellant. Further, I find that the appellant has also relied on the decision of Fortis Hospital Ltd. (supra). In the said case also the show cause notice was limited for confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty but in the adjudication, the duty was demanded from the appellant. In those facts of the case, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that demand of duty was not the part of the show cause notice, therefore, duty cannot be demanded. In this case, duty ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
