9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 749X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ports from July, 1994. For manufacture and export of these goods, they had imported capital goods during the period from May, 1990 to June, 1992 by availing the exemption under Notification No. 13/81-Cus., dated 9-2-81 as amended. The appellants had also executed a Bond with the Customs authorities and had given an undertaking to the effect that the Unit having failed to carry out their export obligation, is liable to pay duty on the capital goods which were brought without payment of duty, availing exemption under Notification No. 13/81-Cus. available to a 100% EOU. Therefore, they were issued a Show Cause Notice dated 14-2-1996 by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division III, Ahmedabad-I calling upon them to show cause why t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were not in a position to carry out the entire export obligation, they sought and received permission from Deputy Commissioner, Kandla Free Trade Zone for DTA clearance of 128 sets of TOPs valued at Rs. 12.30 lakhs as per the letter dated 24-11-94 of that authority. It is contended that similarly the Ministry of Industry, Department of Industrial Development, EOU Section vide their letter dated 22-9-93 granted them the permission to pre-maturely de-bond the capital goods imported earlier by them without payment of duty. It is contended that in pursuance of the above permission, the customs duty amounting to Rs. 30,70,578/- on the goods imported duty free under notification No. 13/81-Cus., dated 9-2-81 as amended has been demanded from them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing, the ld. Counsel for the appellants stated that the duty amount liable to be paid by the appellants on the depreciated value of the machinery on the date of its de-bonding would only be about Rs. 3.5 lakhs. He is however, not able to give the depreciated value of the machinery and is also not able to indicate the rates of duty applicable in their case. The ld. DR for the Respondents has reiterated the findings arrived at in the orders of lower authorities. We have considered these submissions. The appellants are not contesting their duty liability on account of their non-fulfilment of the export obligation as a 100% EOU. They have also not indicated as to how much duty they are liable to pay as per their own admission in terms of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
