Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 660 - AT - Customs100% EOU - benefit of exemption Notification No. 53/97- Cus dated 3.6.1997 - benefit denied observing that the respondent had not procured the necessary permission from the competent authority i.e. Development Commissioner to clear the goods in DTA by availing the concessional benefit under EPCG Scheme - whether the respondents are to be denied the benefit of exemption Notification No. 53/97-Cus dated 3.6.1997 allowed at the time of import two DG Sets in 1997 on clearance of said two DG Sets on being obsolete in DTA to EPCG License holders at concessional rate of duty? HELD THAT - The adjudicating authority simply denied the benefit of Notification No. 53/07-Cus dated 3.6.1997 observing that the respondent had not procured the necessary permission from the competent authority i.e. Development Commissioner to clear the goods in DTA by availing the concessional benefit under EPCG Scheme. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has elaborately dealt with the said finding of the adjudicating authority. After applying the Circular issued from time to time the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the appellants have cleared the 2 DG Sets in question bearing Sl. No. 2DN-00890 and DN-00915 under due permission for clearance into DTA as granted/permitted by the Development Commissioner SEEPZ vide letter No. SEEPZ/28/EOU/77/99-2000/ Vol-III/6876 dated 19.08.2004. I also hold that the appellants have fulfilled the conditions laid down in the said letter that (i) the appellants shall maintain the stipulated export obligation and NFE; and (ii) the appellants shall pay the applicable rate of duty on the value assessed by the Customs/Central Excise authorities. I further find that the appellants are eligible for the concessional rate of duty on the clearances effected to EPCG License holder unit. No contrary evidence has been produced by the Revenue to rebut the aforesaid findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) - there are no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|