9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (12) TMI 154 - AT - CustomsEOU jurisdiction for raising demand for short levy will be with the proper officer having jurisdiction over the E.O.U. and not the Custom House where the goods were assessed on an into bond Bill of Entry for the purpose of being warehoused matter referred to Larger Bench (LB) to answer the following questions (a) Whether the entire premises of 100% EOU should be treated as a warehouse? (b) Whether the imported goods warehoused in the premises of 100% EOU is to be held to have been removed from the ware house before the same is issued for manufacture/production/processing by the 100% EOU? (c) Whether issue for use by 100% EOU would amount to clearance for home consumption? (d) Whether non-filing of ex-bond bill of entry before using the goods by the 100% EOU makes the goods as not cleared for home consumption? (e) Whether, the decision of the Tribunal in the case STI India Ltd. cited supra enunciates correct position of law?
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi heard an appeal by the Department against an Order-in-appeal, and another appeal by a party against an order of the Commissioner (Appeal). Both cases involved the same party and common issues, thus were dealt with by a common order. The party, a 100% EOU, was engaged in manufacturing Terry towels and had imported HSD through Kandla Port. The original authority demanded additional duty of customs, but the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the additional customs duty imposed under Section 128 of the Finance Act, 2003 was exempted. The party's advocate argued that the duty liability arises only when goods are removed from the warehouse, and relied on a Tribunal decision to support this claim. The Tribunal found that the jurisdiction for raising demand for short-levy lies with the proper officer having jurisdiction over the EOU. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of whether the entire premises of a 100% EOU should be treated as a warehouse and referred several related issues to a Larger Bench for consideration. The decision was pronounced on 17-12-2008.
|
