9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against appellant. - Appeal No. E/638/2010 - Final Order No. 41646 / 2018 - Dated:- 22-5-2018 - Hon ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The appellants are holders of private bonded warehouse license as a 100% EOU to manufacture and export Polyurethane Shoe Soles They received various capital goods during the period from April 1993 to June 1993 duty free in terms of Notification No. 123/1981. Based on intelligence, officers visited the premises on 5.1.2001 and found that the capital goods have been removed from the premises to their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty imposed on M/s. Dyechem (I) Ltd. was set aside. The appellant went on appeal before Tribunal and vide Final Order No. 1345/2007 dated 15.11.2007, the Tribunal set aside the demand and remanded the matter to the original authority for readjudication after following the instructions contained in Circular No. 21/95-Cus. dated 10.3.1995 and to consult with the Development Commissioner before deciding the show cause notice. In remand proceedings, the adjudicating authority again confirmed the duty amount and ordered confiscation with option to redeem on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 25,000/- vide denovo Order-in-Original dated 15.12.2008. Meanwhile, the appellant had been issued suo moto final exit order dated 12.2.2004 by the Develop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods are being assessed, it is necessary to consider the depreciation and if so the duty demand would be reduced considerably. 3. The ld. AR Shri S. Govindarajan supported the findings in the impugned order. He argued that the appellant has illicitly removed the capital goods / machineries from the premises. This is violation of the conditions of the notification and is liable to pay duty on such capital goods. Since the appellant has not used the machineries and the machineries not being in possession of the appellant, they cannot claim depreciation. 4. Heard both sides. 5. Undisputedly, the machineries were removed by the appellant from the premises to their sister unit. The only argument put forward by the counsel is that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
