9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the importer appellant had, after ownership had passed on to M/s VSNL, ceased to retain interest in the continued operation of the asset under the exemption notification. The failure to retain status as warehouse for the location of the imported goods compromised this obligation with consequence of duty liability and penalties. There is no valid ground for mitigation or escapement in the appeal of the importer that requires consideration by us. Mere technicalities, cannot overcome the obligations stipulated in law. The claims of the appellant are without sustenance. Appeal dismissed. - APPEAL NOS: C/1159 & 1193/2008, APPLICATION NO: C/MISC/85509/2018 - A/88301-88302/2018 - Dated:- 28-12-2018 - Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s filed for extension and on investigation, it appeared that the importer had, under an agreement with M/s VSNL, leased the imported goods to the latter and, by agreement dated 21st May 1997, transferred the same with retrospective effect from 16th November 1996 for a consideration of ₹ 95,22,761, the depreciated value in the books of accounts, without intimation to, or approval of, the bond authorities. 3. In this backdrop, proceedings were initiated against the appellant for violation of condition no. 6 of notification no. 138/91- Cus dated 22nd October 1991 and requiring the importer to pay customs duty that had been foregone on the capital goods and office equipment liable from the date of expiry of warehousing period. The enti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exemption notification or in exercise of authority conferred by section 72 of Customs Act, 1962. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Tribunal in Alpha Future Retail Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi [2017- TIOL-3651-CESTAT-DEL] and in Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin v. Veeforess Exporters [2007-TIOL-1836-CESTAT-MAD]. 5. It would appear that Revenue insists that the duty should have been computed on the transaction value of ₹ 95,22,761 being the agreed-upon consideration for transfer of the asset from the importer to M/s VSNL contracted with effect from 16 November 1996. It would also appear that this stand of Revenue is premised on the liability crystallising on transfer of the asset rather than up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation, Learned Counsel took us through the two notifications. It is seen that the exemption notification against which the import had been effected was applicable to the appellant whereas notification no. 140/91-Cus dated 22nd October 1991 cited in the show cause notice was not. Nevertheless, the interchanging of the applicable notification is attributable to oversight and, in the context of the decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in re JK Steel Ltd and re Pradyumna Steel Limited, is not fatal to the proceedings. The submission of the appellant on this aspect does not merit consideration. 7. Though Learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon ble High Court of Bombay in Dharampal Lalchand Chug and others v. Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
