TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 995X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observation, the adjudicating authority is bound to allow the depreciation upto the date of payment of duty. As per the submission made by the Appellant that if the depreciation is considered upto the date of payment then duty comes to Nil. There is no rebuttal to this fact. Hence the demand is not sustainable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal No. 10151 of 2015 - A/10709/2022 - Dated:- 20-6-2022 - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri J.C Patel, Shri Rahul Gajera Ms. Shamita Patel, Advocates appeared for the Appellant Shri Ghanshyam Soni, Joint Commissioner (Authorized Representative) for the Respondent ORDER The brief facts of the case are that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the Commissioner (Appeals), who by his order-in- appeal dated 28.08.2000 set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner. In de-novo proceeding, Assistant Commissioner once again vide order dated 19.03.2001 directed payment of duty with interest for clearance of goods to MS University. In appeal filed by Appellant against the said order dated 19.03.2001, the Commissioner (Appeals) by his Order-In-Appeal dated 14.09.2001 upheld the direction to pay duty by filing revised Bill of entry but he set aside the demand of interest. He also directed to work out the duty amount in accordance with law. Against the said Order-In-Appeal dated 14.09.2001 appellant preferred an Appeal to the Tribunal challenging the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 2,00,000/- which had been deposited by the Appellant be refunded to the Appellant. The Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 28.04.2014 held that duty of Rs. 12,43,033/- as had already been computed by order dated 28.03.2002. Accordingly he rejected the Appellant s claim for refund of said amount of Rs. 2,00,000 and directed that Appellant to pay the balance amount of Rs. 10,43,033/-. Being aggrieved, Appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide Order-In-Appeal dated 07.10.2014 rejected the appellant s appeal. Therefore, the appellant filed the present appeal. 2. Shri J.C Patel, Learned Counsel along with Shri Rahul Gajera Ms. Shamita Patel, Advocates appearing on behalf of the appellant. Shri J.C Patel su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re to be cleared and duty was to be paid. Circular No. 27/98-Cus dated 21.04.1998 Circular No. 49/2000-Cus dated 22.05.2000 Circular No. 29/2003-Cus dated 03.04.2003 Circular No. 14/2004-Cus dated 13.02.2004 2.3 He further submits that tribunal by the following Judgments held that the rate of depreciation in force at the time of clearance of the goods shall apply. Baglan Taluka Grape Growers Co-op Soc. Ltd. Vs. CCE -2019 (369) ELT 1162 Shriram Grape Growers Co-Op Soc Ltd. Vs. CCE -2018(364) ELT 420 Fontasey Engineering Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE 2020(371) ELT 586 I-Flex Solution Ltd. Vs. CC- 2005 (184) ELT 259. 3 Shri Ghanshyam Soni, Joint Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
