9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and shifted to the new premises were already in use by the appellants for a period of four years. Therefore, it cannot be alleged that the goods were never put to use. The contention of the appellant that the goods were not in working condition has to be appreciated. In any case, there is no removal of the goods from the bonded premises to any other place. It should also be appreciated that the appellants had achieved fairly good level of export performance. – held that duty is payable only at the time of de-bonding. There is no merit in the impugned order demanding duty - C/682/2008 - 547/2009 - Dated:- 29-4-2009 - S/Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) and M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) Final Order No., dated in Appeal No. Shri B.S. Janapa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the premises and found that the said machines were not being put to use. Consequently, proceedings were initiated against the appellants resulting in the issue of show cause notice dt. 27-2-2008. The main allegation in the show cause notice is that the 21 machines which were shifted had not been put to use at all and they were in a defunct condition. The plea of repair, according to the revenue is only an after thought. 4.1 The learned consultant states that even before the machines were shifted, they were put to use in the first premises for a period of nearly four years. When the Superintendent visited new premises, it was clarified that the machineries were under repair and maintenance and on completion of the same they would be eit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h regard to the extension of warehousing period in respect of the capital goods by EOU/EHTP/STP. 5. The learned departmental representative stated that though the goods were shifted to the new premises, they were never put to use. The plea of repair appears only to be an after thought. In these circumstances, she stated that the Commissioner had no other option but to confirm the demands for non-fulfilment of the condition of the Notification No. 52/2003. 6. On a very careful consideration of the issue, we find that the goods which were imported and shifted to the new premises were already in use by the appellants for a period of four years. Therefore, it cannot be alleged that the goods were never put to use. The contention of the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
