9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 951X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (respondent) is an International Call Centre and also a unit for development or manufacture of computer software and IT enabled services at Cochin. For this purpose, they were granted Letter of Permission on 28.3.2000 and it was extended up to 28.3.2010. However the respondent decided to de-bond the unit and informed their intention vide their letter dated 31.1.2007. Thereafter, the de-bonding was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner (AR) submits that there are three grounds in the appeal filed by the Revenue. He submits that the appellant is not eligible for refund on merits and, therefore, the stay is required to be granted. The learned counsel has contested this submission of the department. 3. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. I have also gone through the condition No. (3)(d)(II) of paragra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to the Revenue, in the present situation, where the assessee is de-bonding and paying duty on capital goods, there is an additional requirement to be fulfilled by them at the time of de-bonding. According to paragraph 4 to the Notification No. 52/2003 Cus, the assessee is required to pay duty on the depreciated value of capital goods. 4. The Revenue’s contention is that the assessee-responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the learned counsel. If this is correct, where a unit achieved export obligation within first year or second year, they need not pay any duty. If that be the case, paragraph 4 becomes totally otiose. This interpretation does not follow from the notification. In my opinion, ground taken by the department is prima facie correct. Therefore, in the circumstances, the department has made out stron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
