9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amounts to Rs. 4,00,158/-. In terms of the Notification No. 196/94-Cus., dated 8-2-1994, they were required to fulfil the export obligations. However due to various circumstances, the Respondents could not fulfil the export obligations and the Development Commissioner, Visakhapatnam cancelled the Letter of Permission (LOP) granted to them, in his letter dated 31-3-1995. However the Revenue initiated proceedings against the Respondents to recover Customs duties by issue of a Show Cause Notice dated 21-11-2001. The Original authority passed the order confirming Customs duty amounting to Rs. 4,00,158/-. He confiscated the impugned goods and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/-. A penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was also imposed. The Respondents ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attention to the Hon'ble Apex Court's order according to which all the Aqua Culture units in the Eastern Coast had to be closed in view of the costal Regulations. Further he pointed out that in spite of the best efforts of the Respondents there were 5-6 crop failures as a result, the Respondents could not fulfil the export obligations. However, he pointed out that it was wrong on the part of the Revenue to hold that there was no commercial production. In fact, he said commercial production commenced from 1995 and the goods produced were sold to the other units which exported the same. In the light of this, he said that it was wrong on the part of the Revenue to hold that they were not entitled for the exemption Notification. Further he rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factors which were beyond the control of the Respondents they could not fulfill the export obligations. However it has been submitted that the appellants actually commenced commercial production and they supplied the goods to the other exporters in India. In these circumstances, we do not agree with the Revenue that the Respondents are not entitled for the exemption Notification. The Respondents are willing to pay duty on the capital goods imported duty free on the depreciated value. This point has been appreciated by the Commissioner (Appeals). Moreover the Notification itself provides depreciation from the date of commencement of commercial production. Since the appellants had supplied goods to the other exporters it cannot be said that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
