9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... export obligation and therefore, they applied for de-bonding with the Development Commissioner and the same has been allowed to them. The appellant was required to pay duty on capital goods at applicable rates at the time of payment of duty - appellant has rightly paid duty on depreciated value of capital goods at applicable rates at the time of debonding. Penalties u/s 112 of CA - Held that:- No penalties are imposable on the appellants as proceedings against the appellants has already been closed by the Development Commissioner and no specific provision has been provided for imposing penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. C/559,633,634/2009 -DB - A/62320-62322/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant communicated the payment of duty and calculation thereof on depreciated value to the Central Excise department vide letter dated 12.02.2003 and 28.02.2003, along with a letter of undertaking for de-bonding. Thereafter, the show cause notice was issued by the Commissioner of Customs to demand total duty saved, on the allegation that capital goods/ inputs imported were never put to use for manufacture therefore, depreciation cannot be allowed. It was also held that appellant has not given any intimation about the commencement of production or export of goods. Therefore, the impugned order was passed demanding duty of ₹ 2,50,95,388/- and also imposed various penalties on the appellant. Against the said order, the appellant is b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant could not fulfil export obligation and therefore, they applied for de-bonding with the Development Commissioner and the same has been allowed to them. In that circumstance, the appellant was required to pay duty on capital goods at applicable rates at the time of payment of duty. The said issue has been settled by this Tribunal in the case of Evergreen Synthetics Limited vs. CCE, Surat 2002 (51) RLT 483 (Cegat Mumbai) wherein it has been held that duty is to be demanded on the rates applicable at the time of de-bonding at depreciated value. Further, in the case of CC CCE, Vadodara vs. Solitaire Machine Tools Pvt. Limited 2003 (152) ELT 384 (Tri. Mumbai) and Kharbros Steel India Limited vs. CCE, Jaipur 2005 (71) RLT 635 (Cega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
