9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 763X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant is a 100% EOU-STP unit, holding Customs License for warehousing and in bond manufacturing at their premises located at No.16/1, Residency Road, Bangalore (Unit-II). ii. The appellant also holds another customs licence for their premises located at No.55/35, Vyalikaval, Bangalore (Unit-I). iii. The appellant imported/locally procured several goods availing benefit of Notification No.140/91-Cus. dt. 22/10/1991 and No.52/2003-Cus. dt. 31/03/2003. iv. The Department had the intelligence that the appellant s Unit-I had transferred certain goods to Unit-II having additional premises at BTM Layout Bangalore and the goods transferred were obsolete and not usable for the purposes they were imported; that the transfer was only to avo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts, the Department issued show-cause(SCN) notice proposing confiscation of the goods and demanded differential duty of Rs. 19,94,777/- and Rs. 12,14,821/- and also proposed imposition of penalties from the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act. xi. The show-cause notice was adjudicated by the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, who confirmed the demand of duty for Rs. 19,94,512/- and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 20 lakhs along with imposition of penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the appellant. 3. Both sides have been heard. 4. The main pleadings of the appellant are: i. The impugned order s findings are contrary to the facts and evidence on record. ii. The goods in question were imported during 2006 and duly bonded and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is no question of installing the same. x. These goods were computer and its parts and accessories, they require constant upgradation of software and anti-virus applications; therefore they were de-commissioned for brief period for upgradation and thereafter the capital goods in question were used for export of ITES. xi. Therefore, the finding of the Commissioner that the goods became obsolete is not supported by evidence. xii. Capital goods listed in Annexure B to SCN were computer and its accessories, which were bonded during 2001; they were put to use from the date of bonding i.e. 2001. Just because during 2007, the goods have become allegedly obsolete, demand of duty on the basis that they were not used for intended purposes i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had not been put to use. Further there was no evidence put up on record that when the goods were usable and had operational life, they were installed and put to use by the appellant. When it is so, the demand of duty of Rs. 19,94,512/- confirmed by the impugned order is hereby sustained. The case laws cited by the appellant are not applicable for the present facts. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to any relief on the demand of duty. 7. Further considering the facts and circumstances on record, the impugned order confiscating the goods listed in Annexure A&B of the show-cause notice and in lieu of confiscation, imposing redemption fine of Rs. 20 lakhs is not sustainable. Therefore, though we are sustaining the demand of duty confi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
