9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the liability to pay excise duty on imported capital goods, the exemption of excisable goods brought into a 100% export-oriented unit as raw material, and the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and Section 112 of the Customs Act. Summary: Liability to Pay Excise Duty on Imported Capital Goods: The appellant, a 100% export-oriented unit, applied for permission to debond the unit after commencing production. The department alleged that the unit had not achieved the required value addition and demanded duty forgone on importation of capital goods and raw materials, along with proposing a penalty. The appellant contended that no notice invoking Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was issued, making the Commissioner's order confirming excise duty without jurisdiction. Exemption of Excisable Goods as Raw Material: The appellant argued that it had not imported any raw material, using only Indian-manufactured raw material brought into the factory under an exemption from excise duty. The Commissioner confirmed excise duty payable under Section 11A and imposed a penalty, despite acknowledging that no imported raw materials were utilized. Imposition of Penalty: The departmental representative justified the penalty under the Import Policy, stating that debonding of the unit required payment of customs and excise duties along with any applicable penalty. However, the Tribunal found no provision in the Customs Act justifying the penalty on goods cleared from a bonded warehouse and set aside the impugned order. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, stating that the duty payable under the relevant notification had already been paid, and there was no provision for the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act in this situation.
|
