9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 576X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tant, submitted that M/s. POL Securities Ltd., a 100% EOU, had imported 40 computers and procured 4 UPSs indigenously without payment of duty; that on verification by the Departmental officers, it was found that 7 computers were transferred by them to their sister concern, M/s. Granada Services Ltd. and 32 computers were outside the bonded godown but within the appellants STP Unit; similarly, one UPS was installed outside the bonded premises and 3 UPSs had been transferred to M/s. Granada Services Ltd.; that the Joint Commissioner, under the Order-in-Original No. 10/2002, dated 31-5-2002, confiscated 3 computers and 4 UPSs and imposed penalties on both the appellants, besides imposing penalty on their Directors and also confirmed duty on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said circular that physical supervision of Customs Officers, locking of warehouse premises, etc. has been deleted and the EOU could itself undertake all movements from the EOU including clearance to other EOUs subject to recording of each transaction in the records including private records; that the said circular is binding on the officers and the provisions of the said circular are clearly applicable to indigenous goods procured under Notification No. 1/95-C.E.; that this removal of computers and UPSs from Appellant No. 1 to appellant No. 2 was in accordance with the substantive condition of the legal provisions contained in the circular and, therefore, neither the goods are liable for confiscation nor duty is demandable nor penalty is p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 7-5-2001 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, is only for debonding of the goods and not for the permission to transfer the same from one 100% EOU to another 100% EOU. He, finally, submitted that the Board s circular dated 2-12-98 is not applicable in respect of Notification No. 140/91-Cus. as it was issued with reference to Notification No. 44/98 only. He, therefore, contended that, as both the appellants have contravened the provisions of Notification, they are liable to pay the duty on the goods involved and penalty is imposable besides confiscation of the goods. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The facts, which are not disputed, are that the goods were imported or procured indigenously without payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
