9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (9) TMI 346 - AT - Customs100% EOU - They have also another unit under the STPI Scheme - Transfer of goods from EHTP units to STP - During the Customs Special audit team visit it was noticed that some of the bonded goods like Air Conditioners, batters, UPS procured by the respondents without payment of duty against CT. 3 Certificate in terms of exemption provided under Notification 22/2003-C.E. dated 31-3-2003 were shifted and found installed in the STP unit located at the sixth floor i.e. outside the bonded premises of this unit Held that - when the different EOU units STPI and EHTP are under the control of the same managements, demand is not justified - A very harsh measure is not at all needed
Issues:
Revenue's appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 6/2008-Cus. (B) | Cross objection filed by the party Analysis: The case involves a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) with premises in Bangalore, operating under the STPI Scheme and licensed as a Private Bonded Warehouse. The Customs Special audit team found that certain bonded goods were shifted to the STPI unit without proper permission, leading to duty liability. The Original Authority confirmed the duty demand and imposed a penalty, which was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged a procedural lapse but set aside the duty demand, imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Section 117 of the Act. The Revenue appealed, arguing that the Commissioner exceeded the scope of the notification and requested restoration of the duty demand. The Tribunal referred to a similar case involving Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab. Ltd., where it was concluded that transferring goods between EOU units under the same management should not lead to a duty demand. The Tribunal emphasized the need to optimize resources and regularize such actions ex post facto, without imposing harsh measures. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to set aside the duty demand, noting that the penalty was not contested by the respondent. In conclusion, the Revenue's appeal and cross objection were disposed of by the Tribunal, affirming the Commissioner's decision to cancel the duty demand and maintain the penalty. The judgment was pronounced on 25-9-2008 by the Tribunal members Dr. S.L. Peeran and Shri T.K. Jayaraman.
|
