9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 910X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bhudesai, Supdt. (AR) Per: Raju This appeal has been filed by M/s Indoworth (India) Ltd. against order of commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the order of Dy. commissioner regarding quantification of the customs duty on account of debonding. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that they are a EOU and they requested for a partial debonding of their unit. They submitted a list of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , a fresh order dated. 5.4.2007 was issued wherein they were asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 14,30,874/-in respect of goods involved. under partial debonding. 2.1 The second order of the Dy. commissioner was challenged by the Revenue on the ground, that original order dated 11.12.2006 had quantified the amount to be paid as Rs. 59,25,058/-and in respect of same proceedings, a fresh order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... far as the said order was a conditional order. He further argued that the appellants were entitled to depreciation upto day of debonding and any final assessment of the duty liability could not be done before the date of final debonding was ascertained and depreciation calculated. accordingly. In these circumstances, the first order can only be an interim order. He further mentioned that the fina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18(e) prescribes that at the time of debonding, the appellant would be entitled to claim depreciation upto the date of debonding. The exact quantification of the amount to be paid would therefore depend on the date of debonding and the quantum of depreciation available at that time. Any assessment of quantification done prior to that date would only be a provisional assessment. In these circumstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
