Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2006 (10) TMI 329

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cal formulations such as Tablets and Capsules. Under the Notification No. 13/81-Cus. dated 9-2-1981, the appellants imported capital goods duty free. All the machines imported were installed and put to use in the manufacture of the goods to be exported. However in respect of one machine, the appellants could not install the same and put to use for production. Hence the Revenue proceeded against the appellants by issue of Show Cause Notice dated 21-9-2005, proposing confiscation of the machinery under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 and demand of duty. Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was also proposed. The Adjudicating authority confiscated the machinery under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. He imposed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... chinery has not been installed within the stipulated period in terms of Notification No. 13/81-Cus. as amended. (ii) The machinery was imported under Notification No. 13/81-Cus. dated 9-2-81. The above Notification did not stipulate any time limit to install the capital goods imported. The Notification No. 13/81-Cus. was rescinded by the Notification No. 53/97-Cus. dated 3-6-97. This Notification also did not contain any time limit for installation of the capital goods. The above Notification was amended by the Notification No. 65/99 dated 19-5-1999. This amending notification stipulates the time limit. But the amendment is effective from 19-5-99. Therefore this condition cannot be applied to the goods imported under Notification No. 1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... No. 21/95-Cus. dated 10-3-95 has clarified that the liability of Customs duty on goods exported by 100% E.O.U. arises at the stage of the unit being de-bonded. The Board has clarified that the demand should be confirmed only after a definite conclusion has been arrived at by the Development Commissioner. This is not a case of de-bonding nor of violation of the conditions of Notification No. 13/81. Actually the DC has extended the status of 100% E.O.U. to the appellants for further period of 5 years. He has further granted the permission to export machinery. Therefore the conclusion of the Commissioner that the condition of notification relating to installation and use of the imported capital goods has been violated is not correct. (viii) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ator imported free of duty under Notification No. 13/81 on 16-9-95 could not be installed for the reasons stated by the appellants. It is seen that the due to International market situation, increased production of the goods using the imported Fluid Bed Granulator would not be a sound business proposition. The appellants had to abandon the idea of installation of the machinery. Thus we find that the non-installation of the machinery is due to unforeseen circumstances. In other words, there is no deliberate violation of conditions of the Notification No. 13/81. In this situation, the appellants approached the Development Commissioner and obtained permission for re-export of the said machinery. This permission is dated 12-5-2005. While giving .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... urse of the hearing, the learned Advocate informed that in spite of the non-installation of the said machinery the appellants had completed the export obligation. In such circumstances, is it fair on the part of the Revenue to demand duty on the machinery in spite of Development Commissioner's permission to re-export the same. It would be fine for the Government of India and also for the Trade at large if the different Wings of the Government work in unison and harmony instead of moving at opposite directions as in the present case. The impugned order has no merits. Therefore, we set aside the same and allow the appeal. The Commissioner should take a decision on the request of the appellants for re-export in the light of the Development Com .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates