9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 995 - AT - Customs100% EOU - De-bonding - payment of duty on capital goods imported without payment of duty - Wrongful application of rates/period of depreciation - benefit availed under N/N. 13/81-Cus., dated 9-8-1981 - HELD THAT - It is on record that, vide Order-In-Original dated 28.03.2002 Ld. Lower Adjudicating authority held that deprecation was allowed only upto the date of permission for de-bonding which has been categorically held to be incorrect by the tribunal in its remand order. Clearly, lower authorities are not following the directions given by Tribunal. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. As per the Tribunal s clear observation, the adjudicating authority is bound to allow the depreciation upto the date of payment of duty. As per the submission made by the Appellant that if the depreciation is considered upto the date of payment then duty comes to Nil. There is no rebuttal to this fact. Hence the demand is not sustainable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Calculation of duty payable on imported capital goods for clearance. 2. Application of depreciation rates and period for duty calculation. 3. Compliance with Tribunal's directions by lower authorities. Issue 1: Calculation of Duty Payable The case involved M/s. Anjaleem Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., an export-oriented unit availing exemption from Customs duty. The dispute arose when duty was demanded on imported goods despite permissions and appeals. The Assistant Commissioner initially ordered duty payment, which was challenged through appeals up to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in a 2006 order, upheld duty payment but directed correct calculation considering depreciation until the date of payment, not just until permission for de-bonding. Despite subsequent orders, in 2014, the Assistant Commissioner rejected a refund claim based on the earlier duty calculation, leading to further appeals. Issue 2: Application of Depreciation Rates The Appellant argued that lower authorities failed to implement the Tribunal's 2006 order, which directed depreciation allowance until the duty payment date. They contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in disregarding the Tribunal's directive and wrongly applied depreciation rates from outdated circulars. The Appellant emphasized the need to follow the rates in force during goods clearance and duty payment, as established in various tribunal judgments and circulars. Issue 3: Compliance with Tribunal's Directions The Tribunal criticized the lower authorities for not adhering to its 2006 order, which clearly mandated depreciation allowance until duty payment. The Tribunal reiterated that the duty calculation should consider depreciation until the payment date, as per the Notification 13/81 provisions. It highlighted the Appellant's claim that duty would be nil if depreciation was correctly applied until the payment date, emphasizing the unsustainability of the demand in such a scenario. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief as per law. The judgment emphasized the importance of following Tribunal directives, especially regarding depreciation calculation until the date of duty payment. The case underscored the significance of applying current depreciation rates during goods clearance and duty payment, as established in relevant tribunal judgments and circulars.
|
