9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter of Permission by the office of the Director, STPI, Mumbai for development/manufacture of software under the EOU scheme. For the purpose of development of software and for export to outside India, the appellant had procured capital goods/equipment etc., without payment of duty, under the provisions of Notification Nos.140/91-Cus., dated 22.10.1991 and 1/95-C.E., dated 4.1.1995. The said exemption notifications prescribed certain conditions for availing the duty exemption contained therein. The Central Excise officers visited the premises of the appellant on 14.5.2009 and on inspection/verification of stock of capital goods, they found that the registered premises were occupied by some other company, viz., M/s. XCEL Telecom Pvt. Ltd., and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of capital goods as per the notification dated 22.10.1991. 4. On the other hand, the learned AR appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order and further submitted that the appellant did not produce any document before the authorities below to show that it had achieved the export obligation in terms of the bond executed by it. He further submitted that the appellant is liable to pay the entire duty liability confirmed against it and the benefit of payment of duty at depreciated value should not be available inasmuch as no such documentary evidences were produced in support of such claim before the authorities below. Thus, he submitted that confirmation of the adjudged demands is in conformity with the st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he export obligations have actually been achieved by them. Upon detailed analysis of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals), vide paragraph 15 in the impugned order, has recorded specific finding that the appellants did not achieve the export obligation. Therefore, confirmation of duty/interest demand by the authorities below cannot be faulted with. 7. With regard to the claim of depreciation on removal of capital goods from the factory, we find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals), vide the impugned order dated 5.4.2011, has stated that the appellants had not submitted the calculation of the depreciated value of capital goods at the time of their removal from the factory premises. However, on perusal of the letter dated 16.3.2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
