9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... officer at the port of entry. The same has not been varied by that officer. The goods were in warehouse. In the case of Greenspan Agritech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune [2013 (5) TMI 823 - CESTAT MUMBAI], again the Tribunal examined the same notification. It has held that when the appellant is a 100% EOU and the goods imported are used for the intended purpose, no demand will arise. The denial of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Excise Officer initiated proceedings against the appellant on the ground that some of the items imported by the appellants may not qualify as capital goods and the exemption already allowed is not sustainable. The impugned order is upholding such view and confirming the customs duty liability of ₹ 7,86,414/-. The goods were also ordered to be confiscated and penalties were imposed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 6. Admittedly, the goods were imported, assessed and cleared through customs. These were as per the procurement Certificate issued by the jurisdictional Central Excise Officer. The imports were in terms of authorization given to the appellant by the Development Commissioner, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Greenspan Agritech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune - 2014(313) ELT 431 (Tri.-Mum,), again the Tribunal examined the same notification. It has held that when the appellant is a 100% EOU and the goods imported are used for the intended purpose, no demand will arise. We have examined the impugned order and considering the submissions made by the appellant and decided case laws referred above. We find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
