2009 (8) TMI 1064 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit sought by M/s Mobiapps India Pvt. Ltd. (MAIPL) for customs duty, central excise duty, and penalties imposed.
2. Allegations by the Revenue against MAIPL for duty found due on Mobile Tracking Devices (MTDs) cleared under the E.O.U scheme.
3. Jurisdictional issues regarding duty demand on excisable goods manufactured outside the E.O.U premises.
4. Dispute over the manufacturing of MTDs and the duty payable on them.
5. Exemption availed on procurement of inputs and capital goods under the E.O.U scheme.
6. Prima facie findings on the demand of duty on capital goods and PCBs.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, MAIPL, sought waiver of pre-deposit for customs duty, central excise duty, and penalties imposed. The case involved the demand for duty on MTDs cleared under the E.O.U scheme, along with penalties under relevant sections. The appellants contested the allegations made by the Revenue and challenged the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs in demanding duty on goods manufactured outside the E.O.U premises.

2. The Revenue alleged that MAIPL manufactured MTDs using imported inputs and capital goods, leading to duty demands. The Commissioner found that MTDs were manufactured using hired labor outside the E.O.U premises. MAIPL argued that the activity did not involve dutiable manufacture and that if duty was to be demanded, it should be under Section 3 of the Act.

3. The jurisdictional issue arose regarding duty demand on excisable goods manufactured outside the E.O.U premises. MAIPL contended that duty cannot be demanded on goods manufactured outside the E.O.U premises without using imported inputs as per LOP. The Tribunal found that the demand on capital goods and PCBs was not sustainable, questioning the jurisdiction of the Commissioner over units outside the E.O.U.

4. The dispute centered on the manufacturing of MTDs and the duty payable on them. MAIPL provided evidence of duty paid on imported PCBs used in manufacturing MTDs. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the Commissioner's findings and calculations, directing a detailed examination to determine the manufacturing party and the duty payable on the MTDs.

5. Exemption availed on procurement of inputs and capital goods under the E.O.U scheme was a key issue. The Tribunal found that exemption on goods used for MTD production could not be demanded at that stage, as the goods were still available with MAIPL in their bonded premises. The claim that goods were not used contrary to LOP needed further examination.

6. Prima facie findings were made on the demand of duty on capital goods and PCBs improperly removed outside the E.O.U premises. The Tribunal ordered waiver of pre-deposit for the balance amount of duty, interest, and penalties pending the appeal decision, considering the amount already deposited by MAIPL during adjudication.