9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 768X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Excise & Service Tax, Noida. Therefore they are taken together for disposal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that - 2.1 Appellant was granted approval vide letter dated 30.1.2002 issued by Ministry of Commerce & Industry, for setting up an Industrial Park, in terms of scheme notified under Section 80IA (4) (iii) of Income Tax Act, 1962. In terms of the approval, Appellant was entitled to use 90% of allocable area for industrial use and 10% of the allocable area for commercial use. 2.2 Appellant entered into an agreement dated 28.5.2002 with Ministry of Information Technology for setting up of infrastructure for Software Technology Park (STP) for development of computer software, under which Appellant was required to provide infra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant also vide letters dated 7.3.2008 and 26.3.2010 submitted list of STP/100% EOU and non STP/non EOU, using business facility/incubation Centre, located in 10% of the allocated area for commercial purposes. 2.7 Notice to Show Cause dated 5.7.2011 (hereinafter referred to as SCN) was issued under Section 124 of Customs Act alleging that Appellant has violated conditions of exemption notifications under Customs and Central Excise Act, in as much as the imported/indigenous goods, procured duty free, were not used solely for the purpose of manufacture and development of software for export. 2.8 The said SCN proposed to demand and recover amounts of Rs. 49,23,375/- towards duty of customs, on goods imported without payment of duty an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ption under Notification No.1/95-CE dated 04.01.1995 incorporated a condition for allowing such exemption that the goods brought were with a condition that they should be used solely for the purpose of export. He has submitted that in the 10% floor area the facilities were utilized for the purposes other than export. However, it is undisputed fact that the said goods were brought in after issue of CT-3 Certificate by the jurisdictional officer of Central Excise after satisfying that the same were required solely for the purpose of export. Therefore the demand of Central Excise duty by denying the exemption under Notification No.1/95 is not sustainable. He has further submitted that the exemption under Notification No.22/2003-CE dated 31.03. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pace for establishing the business facility called incubation centre which was used for commercial purpose and it was not solely used for the purpose of export. We also find that there are no allegations against the appellant that there was no export done by the appellant. We also note that the said Notification No.1/95-CE provides for exemption of Central Excise duty if the goods are brought in for the specified purposes solely for export. We also note that the said Notification provided procedure of issue of CT-3 Certificate by the jurisdictional Central Excise officer. We note that there are no established facts that the goods which were brought in by availing benefit of Notification No.1/95-CE were not used for export. We therefore do n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
