2009 (9) TMI 857 - AT - Customs

100% EOU - whether the appellant, an export oriented unit, is liable to pay the interest for the period during which the capital goods (procured without payment of duty) were warehoused in export oriented unit - Held that - It is seen from the records that the appellants had warehoused the goods in 2003 and the validity of the said bond is up to 2008. It is undisputed that the appellants were granted permission for debonding in 2007. Capital goods were removed from the factory premises in January, 2008 - Central Govt. has exempted the interest accrued on the customs duty payable by an export oriented unit. We also find that provisions of Section 61 clearly exclude the liability to pay interest for a period of 5 years from the date of bonding - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability to pay interest for the period during which capital goods were warehoused in an export-oriented unit.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against an order confirming the demand of interest on duty-free goods by an export-oriented unit. The appellant imported duty-free capital goods and indigenous goods, but due to non-payment by the client, the unit went sick and opted to come out of the STPI scheme, paying the customs and central excise duties. The issue was whether the unit was liable to pay interest on duty-free goods while they were warehoused. The appellant argued that interest was not payable during the warehousing period, citing relevant notifications and legal provisions exempting interest on customs duty for export-oriented units. The Tribunal considered the exemption notification and Section 61 of the Customs Act, which exclude the liability to pay interest for a specific period from the date of bonding.

The Tribunal referred to a previous decision in the case of Stelfast India P. Ltd., which held that interest accrued on customs duty on warehoused goods was exempted under the Customs Act. The Tribunal noted that the High Court had affirmed this decision, establishing a precedent in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized that the exemption notification and legal provisions clearly supported the appellant's position, leading to the conclusion that the demand for interest was not justified. Therefore, the impugned order confirming the interest demand was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled that the export-oriented unit was not liable to pay interest for the period during which the capital goods were warehoused, based on the exemption notification and legal provisions. The decision was supported by a previous judgment and upheld by the High Court, leading to the setting aside of the order confirming the interest demand. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, in favor of the appellant.