9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ous goods. The necessity for EOUs for separately obtaining extension of warehousing period for capital goods each time has been done away with vide Board Circular No.7/2005 Cus. dated 14.02.2005 - there is no justification for either demand of duty or confiscation of the goods lying in the bonded warehouse. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - C/365 & 357/2006-CU [DB] - 20948-20949/2017 - Dated:- 21-6-2017 - S. S. Garg, Member (Judicial) And V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Mr. B.Shivadass Mr. N. Anand, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Mohammad Yusuf, D.R. ORDER Per: V. Padmanabhan These two appeals are against the Order-in-Original No. 12/2006 dated 04/05/2006 passed by the Commissioner (Customs), Bangalore and are being disposed of together by this common order. M/s. 'HCL' Technologies Ltd. (formerly known as DSL Software) ( HCL for short) are a 100% EOU working under STPI Scheme and holder of private bonded warehouse license in which they were allowed to carry on the development of software for export. HCL imported various capital goods duty free and also procured them locally without payme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... awei. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeals have been filed. 3. We heard Shri B.Shivdas, Ld. Advocate on behalf of M/s. HCL and Shri N. Anand, ld. Advocate on behalf of M/s. Huawei. The Department was represented by Shri Pakshirajan and Shri Mohammad Yusuf, D.Rs. 4. First we take up the charge of unauthorised removal of the goods by HCL from the bonded warehouse. The ld. Commissioner in the impugned order has held that a part of 5th floor was de-licensed by HCL on 05.08.2002 but the same was not included in any license by M/s. Sykes to whom the premises and goods stand transferred on IUT basis. The premises and goods have been subsequently included in the private bonded warehouse license issued to M/s. Huawei only w.e.f. 14.11.2003. Hence, he has held that the capital goods transferred to M/s. Sykes has remained in unlicensed premises from 06.08.2002 to 13.11.2003. He has further taken the view that after termination of the warehouse license, the goods are deemed to have been removed improperly in violation of the provision of Section 71 of the Customs Act and duty on the said goods is therefore, liable to be discharged in terms of the provisions of Section 72 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Even though, this premise was occupied by M/s. Sykes, and the goods installed therein were used by them, there was no license issued to these premises until 14.11.2003. It is further seen from record that no formalities regarding transfer of these goods to M/s. Sykes were observed such as, filing of shipping bills by HCL and filing of into bond bill of entry by Sykes. 6. When any warehouse is delicensed, the goods may be deposited therein without payment of duty. But if such goods continued to be stored therein without payment of duty even after the warehousing period is over or the warehouse is de-licensed, the goods are deemed to have been removed improperly in violation of provision of Section 71 of the Customs Act, 1962. Under such circumstances, the duty on the said goods is liable to be discharged in terms of provisions of Section 72 (1) (b) ibid. Similar provision exists in Central Excise Law also in respect of goods procured duty free by EOUs. Since in this case the goods deemed to be removed by HCL, were not acquired into any other warehouse by Sykes, the responsibility for paying the duty lies upon the consigner i.e. H.C.L. However, we also note that the very same go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the benefit of customs exemption under Notification No.140/1991 dated 22.10.91 during the periods 1992-98. These goods were warehoused in the bonded premises and periodically the extension of the warehousing license for the bonded premises as well as the warehousing period for the capital goods were being sought by the appellant from time to time. However, the Department noticed that no extension has been sought for the period from 06.04.2002. The Adjudicating authority has taken the view that the goods covered by these bonds which are lying in the warehouse beyond the warehousing period are considered as improperly removed from the warehouse and demanded the customs duty. The goods were also ordered for confiscation and allowed for redemption on payment of fine and penalty. The submission of the appellant is that the necessity for EOUs for separately obtaining extension of warehousing period for capital goods each time has been done away with vide Board Circular No.7/2005 Cus. dated 14.02.2005. They have argued that in terms of this Circular, the appellant is required only to seek extension of the warehousing license once in 5 years. This contention of the appellant was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
