2009 (3) TMI 841 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Pre-deposit amounts demanded by the impugned order.
2. Dispute regarding the duty on Capital Goods and raw materials.
3. Legal undertaking by the applicants.
4. Use of Capital Goods and export obligations.
5. Interpretation of relevant Notification.
6. De-bonding order and duty on Capital Goods.
7. Stay order and coercive measures by Revenue.

Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore dealt with various issues arising from the impugned order demanding pre-deposit amounts. The applicants, a 100% EOU licensed for manufacturing Numbering Machines, faced demands for Customs duty, Excise Duty, Penalty, and Redemption Fine. The Revenue proceeded against them due to their failure to fulfill export obligations, resulting in the imposition of penalties. The applicants argued that all Capital Goods and raw materials had been put to use, and market conditions hindered their ability to meet export obligations. The Advocate referred to Notification No. 13/81-Cus., emphasizing that duty should only be paid on depreciated values for Capital Goods and unused raw materials. The Tribunal noted the partial fulfillment of export obligations and the absence of a provision for demanding duty on used Capital Goods and raw materials. Consequently, a strong case on merits was acknowledged, leading to a complete waiver of the pre-deposit amounts.

Regarding the legal undertaking by the applicants, the Tribunal considered the argument that duty should only be paid as demanded by the competent authority. However, the Tribunal's analysis focused on the actual use of Capital Goods and raw materials, concluding that no duty should be demanded on items that had been put to use. The Development Commissioner's De-bonding order was crucial in determining the duty liability on Capital Goods, which would be based on the depreciated value upon clearance from the warehouse. The Tribunal highlighted the absence of provisions for duty on used Capital Goods in the relevant Notification, leading to the decision to waive the pre-deposit amounts.

In conclusion, the Tribunal granted a stay order, preventing Revenue from taking coercive measures until the appeals were decided. The stay order was to continue even after 180 days had elapsed, ensuring that no enforcement action was taken against the applicants. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering the actual use of imported goods in determining duty liabilities and provided a comprehensive analysis of the issues involved in the case.