9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at unit. Appellants after working for some time the appellants found that the number of export order were few and therefore, applied for debonding of the 100% Export Oriented Unit. On the application of the appellants the Supdt. of Central Excise computed the duty payable on all the items. The appellants paid the duty according to the computation furnished by the Suptd. Central Excise incharge of the appellant's Unit. After six months of payment of this duty the appellants received a show-cause notice alleging that the date of determination of depreciation has wrongly been taken as 29 March, 1996 as against 9 July, 1996. The appellants submitted that under the debonding scheme there is a provision that date of commercial production shall be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar No. 27/98, dated 21 April 1998 clarified that "the period of depreciation would be counted from the date the capital goods have been put into the manufacturing process in the EOU/EPZ/STP/EHTP up to the date they are sought to be cleared to the DTA. In case of the 2nd hand imported capital goods, the depreciation shall be calculated from the value which has been accepted by the Assistant Commissioner Customs at the time of assessing the Into Bond Bill of Entry." The ld. Counsel, therefore submitted that this clarification is applicable to their case as it preferred clarification in regard to capital goods debonding thereof. He submits that in their case capital goods were put into the manufacturing process on 29-3-1996 and hence the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erned all excisable goods produced on trial or commercial production are required to be recorded in the statutory records. He submits that the goods were of standard quality or were exported subsequently does not help the appellants inasmuch as during the run also, goods of the standard quality can be manufactured. Regarding intimation to the Ministry about commercial production the ld. DR submits that notification provided that the date of depreciation should be the date on which the commercial production started. He submits that the ld. Commissioner in his order has examined this issue and found that only a small quantity was manufactured by the appellants starting manufacturing on 29-3-1996. This quantity was too small as to be considere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the provisions of Notification No. 13/81. In the explanation, of this notification there was a provision that depreciation shall be admissible from the date, commercial production starts. We note that clarificatory orders were issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs on capital goods and debonding of capital goods from the EOU etc. In para 4 of this Circular No. 27/98, dated 21-4-1998, Central Board of Excise and Customs clarified that the period of depreciation would be counted from the date the capital goods have been put into the manufacturing process in the EOU etc. When this clarification is read along with explanation given in the Notification No. 13/81. We note that this clarification clarifies. This dispute arose on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
