2013 (2) TMI 89 - AT - Customs

Remittance of duty - Held that - The goods were damaged and were lying in the factory and Commissioner (Appeals) has only ordered that the application for remission of duty has to be considered first. In these circumstances, no reason to interfere in the above findings of the Commissioner (Appeals)- Revenue s appeal which is devoid of merit is dismissed.

Issues:
1. Proper procedure for seeking remission of duty not followed.
2. Appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner.
3. Provisional de-bonding of the unit.
4. Duty payment on depreciated value of indigenous capital goods.
5. Challenge of the order before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:

1. The issue in this case revolves around the proper procedure for seeking remission of duty. The respondent, a 100% EOU Unit engaged in the manufacture of granite monuments, was permitted to de-bond their unit in principle. The Assistant Commissioner assessed the duty liability, which the respondent paid on depreciated value of indigenous capital goods and finished goods. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the respondent, stating that a fresh application for remission of duty could be filed if the original application was not available with the Department. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the damaged goods should be considered for remission of duty first before finalizing the de-bonding process.

2. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Assistant Commissioner, challenging the decision of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to allow the remission of duty for damaged goods. The Revenue argued that the proper procedure was not followed by the respondent in seeking remission of duty, as they did not file an application for remittance of duty and failed to appear for hearings. However, the Tribunal found that the respondent had followed the procedure as per the permission granted by the Development Commissioner, and the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly allowed the appeal based on the circumstances of the case.

3. The provisional de-bonding of the unit was a key aspect of the case. The respondent sought de-bonding as per the permission granted by the Development Commissioner, which was provisionally granted by the Assistant Commissioner. The duty was paid by the respondent, but they contested it on the grounds of goods being damaged. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, stating that the damaged goods should be considered for remission of duty first before finalizing the de-bonding process, which was upheld by the Tribunal.

4. Duty payment on the depreciated value of indigenous capital goods was a significant factor in the case. The respondent paid the duty as assessed by the Assistant Commissioner, but disputed it due to the damaged goods. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, emphasizing the need to consider remission of duty for damaged goods before finalizing the de-bonding process, leading to the Tribunal upholding this decision.

5. The challenge of the order before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was based on the duty already paid by the respondent. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, directing that the damaged goods should be considered for remission of duty first, and only then should the de-bonding process be finalized. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with this decision, as the damaged goods were still in the factory premises, warranting a thorough consideration of remission of duty before proceeding with de-bonding.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in allowing the remission of duty for damaged goods before finalizing the de-bonding process, dismissing the Revenue's appeal for lack of merit.

← Previous Next →