9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 986X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty free imports had been made against procurement certificates. They had imported certain capital goods free of duty under bill of entry No. 25/99, dated 28-7-1999, No. 4304, dated 18-7-2000 and 009, dated 12-10-2010, which had been received in the factory on 6-8-1999, 5-9-2000 and 1-1-2001 respectively and these capital goods had been taken up for manufacturing process on 18-1-2001, 28-9-2001 and 10-6-2002 respectively. The total Customs Duty involved on these capital goods was Rs. 72,12,938/-. Department was of the view that as per the conditions of the exemption Notification No. 53/97-Cus., the capital goods imported under this Notification by 100% EOU free of duty had to be installed within a period of one year, while in this case th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had been installed in the factory and used for intended purpose and it is not in dispute that the goods were used for manufacture of finished goods for export and the finished goods were exported, there is substantive compliance of the conditions subject to which, duty free import of the goods had been permitted, that in view of this, just because the imported capital goods were not installed within a period of one year and the delay in their installation was not condoned by the Jurisdictional Assistant/Deputy Commissioner, the duty exemption cannot be denied, that in any case, the entire demand raised vide show cause notice dated 5-7-2005 is time barred, as there was absolutely no fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of any facts on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion No. 53/97-Cus. had been made during the period July 1999 to October 2000, the show cause notice denying the benefit of this exemption and recovery of duty has been issued only on 5-7-2005, which will survive only if the extended period under proviso to Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 is available to the department, but on going through the show cause notice and the impugned order-in-original, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
