TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the impugned goods for the benefit of concessional rate of assessment - the non-submission of the installation certificates, especially considering that appellant has submitted other proof to establish the installation, cannot then sustain the demand of merit rate of duty in respect of the goods imported vide Bill of Entry No.5219 dt. 25.01.1989 namely computerized PCB in-circuit tester - decided in favor of appellant. Import of Validator - appellants have contended that the goods were never cleared by them - Held that: - From the facts of the case, it emerges that appellants had not mentioned or produced evidence for abandoning the goods during the time that they were in bond. We therefore hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant also imported validator which was also assessed at concessional rate of duty. Since the appellant did not produce installation certificate even after reminder letters, SCN and personal hearing opportunities given to them, duty liability at merit rate amounting to ₹ 1,47,65,239/- was confirmed by the original authority vide order dt. 18.11.2004. Aggrieved, appellant preferred appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order dt. 07.08.2006 dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of order of predeposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. In appeal, the Tribunal vide Final Order No.158/2007 dt. 21.02.2007 remanded the matter back to Commissioner (Appeals) to pass final order on merits subject to predeposit by the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i - 2007 (211) ELT 548 (Tri-Del) (ii) Creative Industries Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs Central Excise (A-II), Hyderabad - 2008 (228) ELT 379 (Tri-Bang) (iii) Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Hyderabad Vs. Creative Industries (Rajamundry) - 2012 (282) ELT 349 (AP) (iii) Appellant is in possession of other evidence to prove that the imported goods were installed in their factory. These evidence include the fixed asset register maintained by the appellant under the Companies Act, 1956, copy of the invoice evidencing the sale of self-printing ticketing machine to Northern Railways, copy of gate pass evidencing removal of self-printing ticketing machine from the factory. (iv) With regard to the import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25.01.1989 and 24.10.1989. On the other hand, appellants have produced evidences like fixed asset register, copy of invoices for sale of self-printing ticketing machine to the Railways, copy of gate passes for removal of such self-printing ticketing machine etc. Before the lower appellate authority appellant had produced copies of invoices No. 22 to 32 issued during 13.3.89 to 17.4.89 as the evidences of supply of goods manufactured after installing the goods covered by the first consignment. The Tribunal in the case of Creative Industries P. Ltd. Vs CC CEX, Hyderabad - 2008 (228) ELT 379 (Tri.-Bang.) had held that non-production of installation certificate for the purpose of Regulation (7) of the Project Import Regulations, 1986 is o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioned or produced evidence for abandoning the goods during the time that they were in bond. We therefore hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be faulted in his conclusion that plea of the appellant for abatement of the duty on the warehoused goods they were not cleared cannot be entertained notwithstanding such warehoused goods were disposed of by the department. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also pointed out that the appellant had given a double duty bond undertaking at the time of bonding the goods, by virtue of which they are liable to pay the duties and interest on the warehoused goods. In the event, we are not moved by the prayer of the appellant in respect of this dispute and we do not find any infirmity with the decision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
