9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09.2003. Certain documents were gathered. The appellant's Spinning Division, which is another EOU engaged in manufacture and export of cotton yarn and the appellant's unit, had sought for merger to the Development Commissioner which was allowed. However, for Central Excise purposes, these were different units holding separate registration. Appellant had applied for debonding from EOU which was allowed subject to fulfilment of the conditions laid down therein. One of the conditions was that machineries purchased under duty exemption scheme had to be removed after paying applicable Customs/Central Excise duties. Appellant had thus paid Rs. 45,62,953/- as applicable duties on imported capital goods and spares, indigenous capital goods, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, as detailed in the Annexure 1A enclosed to the Show Cause Notice issued under Sec.11A (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (ii) I hereby confirm the demand of Rs. 2,21,371/- (Rupees Two lakh twenty one thousand three hundred and seventy one only) being the Customs duty payable by M/s.Sri Renuga Soft-X Towels, Towels division, as detailed in the Annexures 1B & 1C enclosed to the Show Cause Notice under the Sec. 28 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962. (iii) I hereby confirm the demand of Rs. 1,76,030/- (Rupees One lakh seventy six thousand and thirty only) being the Central Excise duty payable by M/s.Sri Renuga Soft-X Towels, Towels Division, as detailed in the Annexure II enclosed to the Show Cause Notice under Sec. 11 A(2) of the Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot contesting the demand of Rs. 12,543/-being the duty on imported Picanol looms removed before debonding. 2.1 With regard to issue of calculation of the depreciation, ld. counsel explained as follows : 2.2 The appellant had paid duties on 09.05.2003 taking the cut off date as 31.03.2003 for capital goods and 05.05.2003 for raw materials, consumables and spares; that according to department, appellants are eligible only for depreciation of 10% per annum in terms of Notification No.22/2003-CE dated 31.3.2003 and 52/2003-CE, dated 31.03.2003. That appellants have rightly availed depreciation basing upon Board's Circular No.49/2000-Cus. dt. 22.5.2000 [F.No.305/33/2000-FTT]. In para-17 of the said circular it is provided that capital good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shed to the department, she submitted that it was only an inadvertent error in accounting. She stressed that it was from the documents furnished by the appellant to the Asst. Commissioner that error/difference came to light and therefore it is evident that appellant had no intention to evade payment of duty. She explained that the short payment, if any, occurred because appellant was of the view that they need to pay duty only at the time of removal of goods and need not pay duty on finished products at the time of debonding as laid in the judgement in the case of CCE Vadodara Vs Solitaire Machine Tools P. Ltd. - 2003 (152) ELT 384 (Tri.-Mumbai). Appellant contended that they are not liable to pay duty on finished products and that the dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore are liable to pay duty. 3.2 With regard to demand of duty of Rs. 6,16,116/- being duty on the account of difference in the quantity of baby receiving blankets, he submitted that same cannot be considered as inadvertent error. That the difference would not have come to light but for the inspection conducted by the department. He pleaded that appeal may be dismissed. 4. We have heard submissions made by both sides. 5. The first three demands in the operative portion of the order such as Rs. 2,31,646/-, and Rs. 2,21,371/- are raised on account of incorrect calculation of value of depreciation on capital goods. As rightly pointed out by ld. counsel for appellant, the Circular No.49/2000-Cus. dt. 22.05.2000 is applicable to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r proceedings were initiated alleging clandestine removal of baby receiving blankets which was not declared in the E.R.1 returns filed for the month of May 2003 on the basis of the list furnished by appellant. The Tribunal vide Final Order No.955/2008 dt. 05.09.2008 has set aside the confiscation and penalties and the proceedings have attained finality. In para-2 of the said final order, the Tribunal has found that fabrics were in semi finished conditions and were not fit for removal as final product (baby receiving blankets). Therefore in light of the findings of the Tribunal in the above said final order, we have to hold that the difference in quantity is only an error and the demand raised on account of difference in quantity of baby rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
