TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant on the capital goods would be the amounts indicated above. Duty demand made in excess of the said amounts in the impugned order is not sustainable. Duty demand in regard to the goods removed under bond for export - As noted, the original papers relating to exporter are not available. The appellant had contended that these had been submitted before the jurisdictional authorities and the authorities disowned receipt. It is in this context that Tribunal directed to determine the dispute based on collateral evidence. Clearly, it was improper on the part of the Commissioner to reject the claim after merely noting that original papers are not available. As already discussed, the documents produced satisfactorily bring out that goods were cleared under bond and they were placed on board of the vessel. Subsequent banking correspondence with the Chemical Bank, New York (purchaser's bank) and the RBI and SBI (seller's bank.) indicate that payment was in relation to the same goods. In these circumstances, we feel that duty demand made on the disputed export consignment was not justified. Quantum of fine and penalty to be imposed - As we have noted, the current duty liability on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it was incumbent upon the appellant to discharge duty liability on the capital goods received without payment of duty, since it had not fulfilled the condition of the Letter of Permission (LOP). The dispute in the present proceedings is in relation to the quantum of duty payable on capital goods, as well as whether duty of over Rs. 23 lakhs was required to be paid on consignment it had cleared from its factory under Bond on 23-12-92 for export. 3. The dispute with regard to the duty on capital goods is basically about valuation of the capital goods. The Customs authorities were all along valuing the goods at the original purchase price i.e. without allowing any depreciation. The appellant had all along been claiming depreciation and our remand order had directed that duty be determined after allowing depreciation. However, under the present impugned order also, duty demand has been made without allowing any depreciation. It is the contention of the learned Consultant for the appellant that denial of depreciation is contrary to the method of valuation to be followed in respect of old equipment, as well as the instructions of CBEC. Reliance is being placed, in particular, on Board ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the duty payable on such goods is to be recovered under Rule 14A which at the relevant time provided that if the goods are not exported and proof of export is not furnished, full duty is payable on the goods in accordance with the provisions of law. In this case, the party did not submit the proof of export in respect of S.S. Cutlery claimed to have been cleared for export under bond. Though the party is claiming that in their letter dated 23-3-98 they had submitted the proof of export to the Range Office as well as the Divisional Office, yet, there is no supporting evidence forthcoming for this submission. It is, therefore, contended that in the absence of the proof of export, Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 23,79,369/- is clearly recoverable under Rule 14A and the demand cannot be held time-barred, as there is no time prescribed to make a demand in the case of failure on the part of the noticee to furnish the proof of export. We have considered these submissions. We have already held that there is a continuous obligation for exporting the goods and no time-bar for the purpose of demand of duty would operate. The export of the goods under this AR.4 is also part of the same ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods cleared from the factory were placed on board the vessel. With regard to the difference in GR numbers mentioned in the Bill of Lading as well as shipping bill, the submission of the learned consultant is that the correct number is the one mentioned in the shipping bill and this position will be clear from the fact that connected banking correspondence of the Reserve Bank of India mentioned this GR number and the same amount as mentioned in the shipping bill. The additional evidence produced by the appellant with regard to export is in the nature of banking transaction in relation to the goods. Letter dated 7-5-93 of the Reserve Bank of India mentions granting permission to the appellant for receiving US $ 39865 in connection with the shipment. The appellant has also produced telex from the Chemical Bank Private Ltd., New York to the State Bank of India stating that customer has agreed to pay US $ 39865 now and the balance will be paid directly by Seneco Delco Corporation (buyer) to M/s. Khabros Steel India Ltd. outside of the Letter of Credit after inspection of the material within 60 days. Learned consultant has also pointed out that it was in regard to this part payment off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h is the liability to pay interest. The submission of the learned Consultant is that it is well settled that when goods are confiscated, redeeming of the same would be on discharge of duty liability in terms of Section 125(2) of the Customs Act. Therefore, the question of interest liability cannot arise. He has relied upon the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Jagdish Cancer Research Centre - 2001 (132) E.L.T. 257 (SC). It is the contention of the learned SDR that judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court could not apply to the present case since the imported goods were originally cleared against bond. 10. We are not able to agree with the Revenue on this. Upon confiscation, goods belong to the Government and liabilities for fine and duty arise only if a person who has been given the option to redeem the goods exercises it. Therefore, the question of interest cannot arise in the case of confiscated goods. The demand for interest under the impugned order is also not sustainable. 11. In view of what is stated above, we confirm the duty liability, fine and penalty as indicated above. The appeal is ordered in these terms. (Dictated and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
