9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 732X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or Fire safety and parts of telecommunication equipments (cables) covered under Bond Nos. 36/05, 146/05 and 127/05 respectively were not eligible for the duty exemption under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus., dated 31-3-2003. On specific request from the respondents, the issue of show cause notice was waived and the issue was adjudicated by the adjudicating authority and the adjudicating authority confirmed the demands on the customs duty foregone by the Smoke Detectors, Communication Bridge (for Fire safety), parts of telecommunication equipments (cables) on the findings that these products are not covered within the ambit of governing EOU notifications. The adjudicating authority passed the following order :- Order (a) I confirm the demand of Customs duty of Rs. 14,51,460/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty only) along with interest amount of Rs. 74,883/- (Rupees Seventy Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Three only) on the imported goods namely Smoke Detectors, Communication Bridge (for fire safety) and cables, which were not covered within the ambit of exemption under the governing notification, under the provisions of Notification No. 52/200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve confiscated the goods and imposed a redemption fine in lieu of confiscation. (d) A plain reading of the Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 indicates that any person, who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111, shall be liable in the case of dutiable goods, other than prohibited goods, to a penalty (not exceeding the duty sought to be evaded on such goods or five thousand rupees), whichever is greater. (e) When the Commissioner has held that the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962, automatically the party is liable to penalty under the provisions of Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. In other words, as a consequence of the above, penalty under Section 112(a) is mandatory. (f) In this case ineligibility of the Notification 52/03 on the imported goods cited supra has been amply proved by the Department and investigations carried out culminated in the registering of an offence case against them. (g) Further the unit paid the duty and interest only after the detection of the violation by the Department and not voluntarily. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this case is regarding to eligibility of the following items :- Smoke Detectors, Communication Bridge (for Fire safety), parts of telecommunication equipments(cables), for the benefit of customs duty exemption under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus., dated 31-3-2003. The assessee claimed the benefit of exemption, while the Revenue s contention is that these items would not fall under the category of capital goods as per the annexure to the said notification. On perusal of the said Notification No. 52/2003, in the description of the goods in the annexure at Sl. No. 3, the following entery is seen :- 3. Uninterrupted Power Supply system (UPS), pollution control equipment, quality assurance equipment, storage systems, special racks for storage, modular furniture, computer furniture, anti-static carpet, tele-conference equipment, servo control system, security system, panels for electrical, net working equipment, data transfer protocol equipment. Central Air Conditioning equipments, air-conditioning system and spares, consumables thereof. (emphasis supplied) It can be seen from the above reproduced entry at Sl. No. 3 in Annexure-I to the said notification, spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal has become infructuous. Therefore, we dismiss the Revenue s appeal. Further in the case of GE India Tech. Centre P. Ltd., this Bench held as under :- 5. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The appellants have been permitted to function as 100% EOU for export of certain services. In rendering the services certain goods may be directly used and certain other goods may have indirect use. In the present case, the appellants are mainly engaged in research and development and export of the results of their activities. It is the contention of the appellants that such research activities, as they undertake require a world-class environment. The impugned goods viz., Armaduct sheets and insulation tapes are meant for insulating the roof slap from inside the building for preventing heat radiation into the air-conditioning area. They have been accepted as accessories to the air-conditioners by the Commissioner (A). However, he has come to the conclusion that the impugned goods may not be necessary in connection with the services rendered by the appellants. At this point, we have to keep in mind the fact that the Development Commissioner and the Board of Approvals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
