9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EOU for the manufacture of the goods and export of polished granite slabs. The appellant procured certain duty-free capital goods and installed the same in their EOU premises for the manufacture of goods and during the period 1986 to 1993 goods worth Rs. 298.54 lakhs were exported but from 1993 onwards, the procurement of granite blocks from the quarries became difficult owing to adverse law and order situation as a result of which the appellant were compelled to halt the production resulting in short-fall of the export obligation as stipulated in the letter of permission. Thereafter, the Development Commissioner, Cochin SEZ vide order dt. 19/07/2002 ordered for de-bonding of the appellants' EOU. However the appellants were contemplating r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He also submitted that the conclusion arrived by the Commissioner(Appeals) is not correct because it is a settled legal position that a unit would remain a EOU till payment of duties on the warehoused goods and the issuance of the final exit order by the Development Commissioner. He also submitted that in the present case, ex-bond Bills of Entry were presented only on 14/03/2008 and duty was paid thereafter and as per the Board's circular No.14/2004-Cus dt. 13/02/2004, the appellants are entitled to refund till the payment of duty. He further submitted that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled in the following cases wherein it has been consistently held that depreciation shall be computed from the date of putting the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. 19/07/2002, the appellant ceased to be a EOU and is not entitled to depreciation from that date. 6. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of the material on record, we find that the capital goods were procured and installed in the EOU in 1986 and the order of de-bonding was passed by the Development Commissioner on 19/07/2002. We note that the appellants are entitled to depreciation from 1986 to 2002 which also works out to 156% as per the Notification No.52/2003 and Notification No.22/2003 dt. 31/03/2003. Further we find that in fact the de-bonding of the capital goods were allowed on 14/03/2008by the Asst. Commissioner and thereafter the duties were paid. Further we find that this issue of depreciation has been s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
