TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 52/2003 - demand on this ground do not sustain. Removal of capital goods which were locally procured without permission - Held that:- Even if the appellant had reversed the credit, the appellant would be eligible to avail the credit of the Excise Duty paid on the capital goods when they are brought back to the EOU. Thus the entire exercise being revenue neutral one and since there is no allegation of diversion of capital goods, the demand on this count do not sustain. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/446/2010 - Final Order No. 40984/2018 - Dated:- 21-3-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) and Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri M.Karthikeyan, Advocate For the Appellant Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds to the job work unit without reversing the credit. The demand of ₹ 2,08,946/- was raised being the Central Excise Duty on such capital goods removed. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed both the demands, interest as well as imposed penalties. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, the Ld. Counsel Shri M. Karthikeyan submitted that the imported capital goods, were removed to the DTA / Jobwork Unit in accordance with the permission dt.5/5/2004 given by the Deputy Commissioner. The Annexure to the said permission clearly gives the details of the capital goods for which permission was given by the Deputy Commissioner. The notification provides ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extended period cannot sustain. He relied upon the decision in the case of Nirlon Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai 2015 (320) E.L.T. 22 (S.C.). 3. The Ld.AR, Shri S. Govindarajan reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that Clause (iv) of Para 4 of the Notification No.52/2003 permits removal of moulds, jigs, tool, fixtures etc. It does not permit the removal of machineries to the job worker premises. The appellant has flouted the conditions of notification. The demand of customs duty to the tune of ₹ 3,23,717/- is legal and proper. The appellant has removed the locally procured capital goods without any permission. The contention of the appellant that since both the Customs Notifications (52/2003 and 22/2003) was iden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
