9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, for exempting the petitioner from depositing the entire amount of duty of Rs. 18,50,939/- has been rejected. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, are that the petitioner who is engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn and is a 100% Export Oriented Unit, was served with a notice for assessment of payment of custom duty of Rs. 33,65,344/- under the provisions of the Customs Act. The petitioner, being aggrieved, took up proceedings against the same contending that the petitioner had entered into a Hire Purchase Agreement on 23.3.1998 with M/s Tata Finance Limited for purchase and import of a machine namely, 'Murata Mach Coner Automatic Cone Winder'. It wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner was not liable to pay custom duty and in such circumstances the respondent no.1 Tribunal has erred in rejecting the petitioner's application by the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner is a sick industry and proceedings in that respect are pending before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). It is also contended that the machine in question was ultimately purchased by M/s Vamptex Traders and it is infact the responsibility of M/s Vamptex Traders to pay the duty and, therefore, the liability towards custom duty cannot be enforced against the petitioner. It is submitted that once the authorities themselves have considered this aspect and have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... between the petitioner and M/s Tata Finance Limited is misconceived. It is also submitted that the proceedings before the BIFR or the existence of a hire purchase agreement would not have any impact on the liability of the petitioner to pay duty under the law and, therefore, the contention of the petitioner to the contrary deserves no consideration. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is observed that the assessing authority as well as the First Appellate Authority have both found the petitioner to be liable to pay custom duty. It is also apparent that the respondent no.1 Tribunal, in the impugned order, has considered the aforesaid aspects as well as the contention of the petitioner and has rejected the same after duly co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
