9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs visited the premises on 5.1.2001 and found that the capital goods have been removed from the premises to their sister unit namely M/s. Dyechem (I) Ltd. Puducherry. The machineries were seized on reasonable belief that they might have been removed illicitly without payment of duty. A statement was recorded from Shri T.S. Ramakrishnan, authorized signatory of the appellant, wherein he admitted that the machineries were removed to their sister unit as their project could not take off in view of the fact that their German collaborator had cheated them by supplying substandard and second hand machineries, which could not be used for production. Since appellant failed discharge appropriate duty on the capital goods, which were removed, show ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nwhile, the appellant had been issued suo moto final exit order dated 12.2.2004 by the Development Commissioner. The appellant filed appeal against Order-in-Original dated 15.12.2008 before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order impugned herein upheld the order passed by the original authority. Hence appellants are now before the Tribunal. 2. The ld. counsel Shri Hari Radhakrishnan appearing for the appellant submitted that in the first round of litigation, the Tribunal had remanded the matter to comply with the instructions in Board Circular 21/95 dated 10.3.1995 which directed that on coming to know of violation of notification etc. customs authorities should immediately inform the Development Commissioner in case of 100% EOU ceases p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emises to their sister unit. The only argument put forward by the counsel is that the duty has to be assessed by considering the depreciation on such machineries. The period involved is 1993 and the show cause notice was issued on 27.6.2001. It is therefore the plea of the appellant that if the depreciation of the goods are reconsidered, the demand of duty would be reduced considerably. We do not find much merit in such submission made by the appellant. The impugned machineries were removed without obtaining permission and in violation of the terms and conditions of the notification. The goods were not in the custody or possession of the appellant as on the date of exit order dated 12.2.2004 or even on the date of visit of the officers on 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
