9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt deals with highly perishable sea food. But the connotation of the term capital goods is to cover plant, machinery, equipment or accessories required for manufacture of goods including refrigeration equipment. But from the use of refrigerated trucks by the appellant, it cannot be said that the said use is in the nature of capital goods and cannot be covered by the Notification No.13/81-Cus. The decision cited by the learned AR in the case of International Creative Foods Ltd. [1997 (12) TMI 400 - CEGAT, MADRAS] is squarely covering the issue against the appellant. Benefit of N/N. 13/81 not available - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - C/393/2006 - Final Order No. 21030 / 2016 - Dated:- 27-10-2016 - Shri S.S. Garg, Ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce dated 1.6.2000 was issued to the appellant at the time of expiry of the bond and the bank guarantee proposing to enforce the bond to recover the dues. In the Order-in-Original dated 24.8.2005, customs duty to the extent of ₹ 22,41,959/- was demanded, by taking the view that the appellant is not eligible for exemption under Notification No.13/81-Cus. inasmuch as the refrigerated trucks will not fall within the description of capital goods . When this was challenged before the Commissioner (A), the same was upheld and hence the present appeal. 2. The impugned order has been challenged on merits as well as on law mainly on the following grounds. (i) On merits, the claim of the appellant is that import of refrigerated trucks are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct from the factory is not eligible for the benefit of Notification No.13/81. He further submitted that the eligibility of the appellant for the benefit of the customs notification has been discussed in detail by the authorities below and hence it cannot be said that the decisions have been taken behind the back of the appellant. Accordingly, he prayed for upholding the impugned order. 6. The appellant was a 100% EOU operating under the Customs Notification No.13/81-Cus. The controversy centres around the eligibility on the part of the EOU to import refrigerated trucks duty free under the Notification for use in their operations. The EOU applied for de-bonding in 1997 so as to migrate to the EPCG scheme. At the time of finalising the dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ified in the bond, we find that the same has been executed specifically to cover the difference in duty between that ordinarily payable without exemption Notification No.13/81-Cus. and duty payable under EPCG scheme. The show-cause notice has proposed to enforce the bond. From these two, it is evident that the department had sought to deny the benefit of the Notification No.13/81-Cus. and to demand the customs duty on the imported refrigerated trucks. The original as well as the appellate authority has examined the claims of the appellant and decided that they are not eligible for the benefit of the Notification. Under the circumstances, we do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order. 6.2 On merits, the appellant s claim is tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
