2006 (10) TMI 49 - AT - Customs

EXIM 100%EOU Alleged that appellant fail to fulfill the export obligation and liable for penalty and interest along with custom duty on depreciated value After considering the details levy of interest set aside and depreciated value taken till date of payment of duty

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability of the importer to pay duty on imported capital goods.
2. Applicability of exemption from payment of duty to the importer.
3. Levying of interest on the importer.
4. Period for allowing depreciation on capital goods.

Analysis:

1. Liability to Duty:
The case involved a unit engaged in manufacturing and exporting computer software as a 100% export-oriented unit. The unit availed exemption from Customs duty under a specific notification but failed to meet value addition and export obligation norms. The Customs authorities issued a show cause notice for duty recovery on imported capital goods. The Commissioner discharged the notice, directing further assessment. The Tribunal upheld the duty liability, stating that in the absence of an exemption notification, the importers are liable to pay duty on the depreciated value of the goods.

2. Exemption from Duty:
The importer sought to gift the capital goods to an educational institution after de-bonding. The Department permitted this without duty payment, subject to recipient eligibility for duty-free import. The Tribunal held that the benefit of exemption did not extend to the importers, as they failed to fulfill the conditions of the notification. The Tribunal rejected the importer's claim for exemption, upholding the duty liability on the imported goods.

3. Levying of Interest:
Regarding the imposition of interest, the Tribunal referred to a previous case where exemption from interest payment was granted to 100% EOU even after the warehousing period. Relying on this precedent, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to set aside the levy of interest on the importers. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal for interest payment, stating that the importers were not liable to pay interest.

4. Depreciation Period:
The dispute also involved the period for allowing depreciation on the capital goods. The Commissioner calculated depreciation until the date of seeking clearance in the DTA, while the importers argued for depreciation until the date of duty payment. The Tribunal referred to a previous case and held that depreciation should be allowed until the date of duty payment, contrary to the Revenue's argument for depreciation only until the de-bonding application date. The Tribunal allowed depreciation until the date of duty payment, as the goods were still in the bonded warehouse.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the importer's claim for exemption from duty payment, upheld the decision on interest levy, and allowed depreciation until the date of duty payment. The appeals were disposed of accordingly on 17-10-2006.