9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee is in appeal and that appeal is registered as Appeal No. C/278/2009 with the grievance that the duty levied by the adjudicating commissioner is not warranted for no violation of the terms of relevant Customs Notification No.133/94, dated 22.06.1994 read with Notification No. 339/85-Cus dated 21.11.1985. 2. To resolve the controversy of both the sides, both the appeals are heard analogues. We surprise that the adjudicating commissioner has proceeded beyond law when the Show Cause Notice made specific allegation as under:- One of the conditions stipulated in the exemption Notifications referred to above was that the non-duty paid goods, whether indig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Consolidated Index of Import & Exports since inception 1990-91 to till date. (b) Year-wise details of imports since 1990-91 (c) Year-wise details of exports since 1990-91 (d) Copy of letter dated 23-05-1996 to Asst. Development Commissioner, NEPZ, given details of value addition for the period April, 1990 to 31st March, 1996. (e) Statement showing value addition achieved upto 31.10.1996. (f) Certificate from Asst. Development Commissioner certifying exports during the period 1991-92 to 1995-96. (g) Copy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rance of the goods for the purpose of rate of duty, etc. With great respect, we are able to comprehend today that the real controversy was whether the assessee had utilised the capital goods in accordance with the terms of Notification. But the issue framed by the Tribunal was altogether different. The issue framed erroneously was answered as the date debonding is the material date for the purpose of rate of duty for clearance of goods on payment of duty. The appeal was thus allowed by way of remand for re-calculating the amount of duty. Unfortunately, Revenue did not file appeal against this order. 7. When the Show Cause Notice is read and the facts on record is examined it appears Tribunal has answered the question raised before it and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er which notification. (ii) Whether any register or record was maintained by the assessee to show import and installation of the capital goods in the NEPZ. (iii) Date of connection of power with capacity thereof and such power used to operate the capital goods. (iv) The period of purchase of inputs and value thereof for use in manufacturing activity and whether such inputs were used for carrying out the manufacturing activity. If so what were the statutory records maintained and whether any energy expenditure was incurred during each financial year of manufacture. &nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
