9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 795X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts availed N/N. 22/2003-CE? Held that: - The duty involved on such clandestinely removed machinery was 13,22,559/-, which was paid by the appellants along with interest at full rate. The Customs Bonded Warehousing License of the appellant was thereafter suspended vide order-in-original dated 8.8.2005 issued by the Assistant Commissioner. The appellants were, therefore, required to pay duty of Customs and Central Excise on the remaining capital goods which were brought under the bond - the effective rate of customs duty on the capital goods imported under EPCG Scheme is prescribed under Notification 97/2004 @ 5% whereas no such Notification has been issued under Section 5A of Central Excise Act prescribing a similar concessional rate of d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner on 08.05.2008. As a consequence of the said order of Assistant Commissioner, the appellant was required to pay Customs and Central Excise duty on the capital goods, which were brought under the bond. Meanwhile, on 18.08.2005 the appellant was given permission for conversion from 100% EOU Scheme to EPCG Scheme by the Development Commissioner subject to payment of duty on imported capital goods, which the appellant paid @ 5% under EPCG Scheme. The appellant had re-warehoused indigenously procured goods under Notification 22/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003 valued at ₹ 56,46,688/- involving Central Excise duty of ₹ 9,21,539/-. The Revenue took a view that the benefit of Notification No.22/2003-CE was only available to the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Notification 22/2003-CE has been included in the export obligation under EPCG Scheme. He further contended that since after conversion the Customs duty @ 5% on all capital goods and the CVD is included in computing the amount of export obligation, demand of duty is not justified after conversion to the EPCG Scheme. He relied on the decisions in the case of CCE Vs. Sahajanand Technologies Pvt. Ltd. - 2015 (325) ELT 625 (S.C.) and Sahajanand Technologies (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2007 (210) ELT 108 (Tri.-Ahmd.). 4. Ld. AR reiterated the findings in order of Commissioner (Appeals) and invited attention to para 6.18 (d) of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009 regarding exit from EOU Scheme and to Para 5.4 of the Policy attending to EPCG S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out payment of duty under Notification No. 53/1997-Cus. while other capital goods were procured indigenously and cleared without payment of duty under Notification 22/2003-CE. DRI Ahmedabad booked a case again the appellants for clandestine removal of some of the imported machinery from the bonded premises. The duty involved on such clandestinely removed machinery was 13,22,559/-, which was paid by the appellants along with interest at full rate. The Customs Bonded Warehousing License of the appellant was thereafter suspended vide order-in-original dated 8.8.2005 issued by the Assistant Commissioner. The appellants were, therefore, required to pay duty of Customs and Central Excise on the remaining capital goods which were brought under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the policy regarding applicability of EPCG scheme only for import of capital goods. Domestic procurement of capital goods by export oriented unit is covered under Notification No.22/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003 as amended. This Notification also takes care of the situation where the capital goods are not used for the purpose for which intended under the Notification. There is a clear provision in the Notification that the 100% EOU before it procures the capital goods, is to execute a bond with the department, binding itself to pay on demand an amount equal to duty leviable on the goods and interest under Section 11 AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 from the date of duty free procurement of the said goods till the date of payment of such du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement of indigenous goods under Notification No.22/2003-CE were made by the appellant and B-16 bond was also signed by appellant. The conditions in Notification 22/2003-CE are binding on the appellant in terms of the bond executed by them and the concessional duty under Central Excise is not covered under the Scheme of EPCG. 10. We also find that the case laws of Sahajanand Technologies (supra) relied upon by the Ld. Advocate are not applicable to the facts of the case because the issue in the said cases was whether the goods supplied by 100% EOU to EPCG license holders are entitled to concessional rate of Customs duty provided under EPCG Scheme and there was no issue of conversion from 100% EOU to EPCG Scheme after the EOU had avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
