9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 986X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we find that there is absolutely no evidence of any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts on the part of the appellant. Moreover when the period of one year for installation of the imported capital goods could be extended by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, on request in this regard being made by the assessee, just because the assessee due to ignorance or any other reason did not made request for extension and there is delay in installation of the capital goods, it cannot be said that there was any intention on the part of the appellant to wrongly avail of the duty exemption or that the appellant had wilfully suppressed the fact of delay in installation of capital goods with intent to evade the payment of duty. substantive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be installed within a period of one year, while in this case these capital goods had not been installed within a period of one year but had been installed after the expiry of period of one year and no permission had been obtained from the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for extension of the period for the purpose of installation. It is on this ground that show cause notice dated 5-7-2005 was issued to the appellant for demand of duty amounting to Rs. 72,12,938/- along with interest from the appellant by denying the exemption in respect of these goods and also for imposition of penalty on them under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 19-1-2007 by whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ud, wilful misstatement or suppression of any facts on the part of the appellant, that in view of this, the impugned order confirming the duty demand along with interest and imposing penalty under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 is not correct. 2.2 Shri Sunil Kumar, the learned Senior Departmental Representative, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in it and pleaded that when one of the condition of the exemption Notification is that the imported capital goods must be installed within a period of one year of their receipt or within such extended period as is allowed by Assistant/Deputy Commissioner and when neither the capital goods were installed within the stipulated period nor the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing made by the assessee, just because the assessee due to ignorance or any other reason did not made request for extension and there is delay in installation of the capital goods, it cannot be said that there was any intention on the part of the appellant to wrongly avail of the duty exemption or that the appellant had wilfully suppressed the fact of delay in installation of capital goods with intent to evade the payment of duty. Moreover the substantive condition of the notification, in question, is that the inputs and capital goods imported must be used for manufacture of the goods for export and the export target must be achieved. There is no allegation that the capital goods, in question, were not used for the intended purpose or that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
