9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inding of the Adjudicating Authority that the machinery was installed and used for the manufacture of the goods in DTA unit - Both the Lower Authorities have recorded a concurrent finding and the machinery which were imported by claiming the exemption for installation in EOU, were not installed, were found in DTA. Appellant was not able to produce any documents to show that they done so by seeking the permission of the Revenue Authorities. In the absence of any such evidence, the action of the appellant to remove the machinery from EOU to DTA without any permission from the authorities, is incorrect and the findings reached by the lower authorities is correct - also, penalties imposed by First Appellate Authority are appropriate. Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te the imported machinery and to demand an amount of ₹ 47,66,416/- being the duty not paid along with interest due thereon apart from the proposal to impose penalties on the appellant company and its Non-Executive Chairman and General Manager (T) under Sections 112 and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. After due process of law, the original authority confiscated the goods under Section 111(o) of the Act, 1962 but gave an option to redeem the goods on payment of ₹ 12,50,000/- and ordered recovery of ₹ 47,66,416/- being the duty payable along with interest in accordance with the bond executed by them read with Notification No. 52/2003- Cus. A sum of ₹ 6,00,000/- pre-paid was appropriated towards the duty so confirmed. A pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal is regarding whether the appellant has violated the Provisions of Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Notification No. 52/2003 -CUS in relation to capital goods which were imported without payment of duty. 7. I find that there is no dispute that the capital goods which were imported without payment of duty claiming the benefit of Notification No. 52/2003 were transferred out of the EOU after their importation and bonding in the EOU. Though, there is a claim of the appellant the machinery was not installed in DTA unit, it is a finding of the Adjudicating Authority that the machinery was installed and used for the manufacture of the goods in DTA unit. I find that in the case in hand, both the Lower Authorities have recorde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
