9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus, demand of Customs Duty, Penalty, and Redemption fine.
Interpretation of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus: The appellant, a 100% EOU, imported machineries under the EOU scheme for manufacturing components and subsequent export. The issue arose when 21 machineries developed problems and were shifted to new bonded premises for repairs. The appellant argued that the conditions of the Notification were fulfilled as the machineries were used in the factory from 2002 onwards. The appellant contended that the lower authority erred in holding that the machineries were not put to use as required by the Notification. The appellant also highlighted the importance of these machineries in fulfilling export obligations and achieving Net Foreign Exchange earnings. The appellant requested permission for repairs, which was denied by the authorities. The Tribunal found that the machineries were still within bonded premises and appeared to have been put to use, ordering a waiver of the dues demanded until the appeal's disposal. Demand of Customs Duty: The departmental representative argued that the appellant did not fulfill the bond conditions and falsely claimed the machineries were in good condition to gain depreciation benefits. The representative contended that the machineries were not put to use as required, justifying the demand for duty. However, the Tribunal noted that the machineries were still within bonded premises and likely put to use, indicating that the revenue's case was not strong. The Tribunal ordered a complete waiver of the demanded dues until the appeal's resolution, emphasizing that no coercive measures should be taken during this period. Penalty and Redemption fine: In addition to the Customs Duty demand, the impugned order required the appellants to pre-deposit Penalty and Redemption fine amounts. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments from both sides, decided to grant a waiver of the dues demanded in the impugned order until the appeal's final decision. The Tribunal emphasized that no coercive measures should be taken against the appellants until the appeal was resolved, allowing the stay application.
|
