Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (9) TMI 1508

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... when the DGFT authorities to action of suo-moto de-bonding and de-bonded their EOU, that value of the machinery will be zero if the depreciation is applied, is nothing but a facade - the appellant has no case on merits - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No. C/446/2004 - Final Order No. A/31463/2017 - Dated:- 11-9-2017 - Mr. M. V. Ravindran, Member ( Judicial ) And Mr. Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member ( Technical ) Shri Y. Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate for the appellant Shri M. Chandra Bose, Additional Joint Commissioner (AR) for the respondent ORDER [ Order Per : M. V. Ravindran ] This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 04/2004 (T) Cus dated 10.08.2004. 2. This is third round of litigati .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 248 (Tri. Bang.) and Mysore Minerals Ltd., 2011-TIOL-913-CESTAT-BANG. He would draw our attention to the fact, since the duty is payable by EOU only at the time of de-bonding which did not take place till the DGFT authorities have de-bonded suo-moto in the year 2006; that there is no link for de-bonding for EOU for payment of customs duty for non performance nor achievement net foreign exchange as is the case, and reads Notification No. 31/81; that the value to be considered for discharge of the customs duty foregone has to be the depreciated value and from the date of de-bonding that is in 2006 de-bonding value as become nil, hence no duty is payable. Further depreciated value of capital goods has to be calculated till the payment of duty .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ods under Notification No. 13/81-Cus. The entire exercise under taken by appellant as to that they are still a EOU as on 08.08.2006, when the DGFT authorities to action of suo-moto de-bonding and de-bonded their EOU, that value of the machinery will be zero if the depreciation is applied, is nothing but a facade. In our view, the appellant has no case on merits. The findings of the First Appellate authority on these points are very detailed one and we reproduce: 5. I have gone through the case records and the submissions made in the grounds of appeal. The appellants are registered as 100% EOU. They have opted for de-bonding of their unit in the year 1992 after obtaining the permission from the Ministry of Industry, New Delhi, subject to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... made by the appellants, passed the order in appeal No. 11/98 (H-II) on 26.05.1998, observing therein that the denial of benefit of assessment under Project Import Regulations, as held by his predecessor was apt and correct. Thus the dispute with regard to provisional assessment letter dated 21.11.1992 of the Assistant Collector, Ananthapur division has come to an end. The Commissioner (Appeals) has thus upheld the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Anathapur. It seems, the appellants have not gone in appeal against the said portion of the Order-in-Appeal No. 11/98 dated 26.05.1998. The said order has attained the finality. I have no powers to modify or over-rule the said finding of the Commissioner (Appeals), Hyderabad. The right .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e of A.P. High Court s order, which has been appropriated by the adjudicating authority against duty demanded by him. 8. In view of the above observation of the Development Commissioner, VEPZ, I hold that the appellants have no ground to claim status of 100% EOU in the instant case. It also appears that the appellants have taken different pleas before different appellate authorities. They are not consistent in their approach. They are trying to mislead the authority by raising new plea which was not raised earlier before the adjudicating officer. The said pleas in no way helps the cause of the appellants. They have also taken the plea that the statutory bonding period in their case is over on 05.04.1998 and the de-bonding conditions a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates