9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (T) Shri Pradyumna G.H., Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri K. Sambi Reddy, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - This appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 183/2006-Cus.(B) dated 29-12-2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Bangalore. 2. The appellants are 100% EOU. They imported machinery, capital goods and raw-material under the 100% EOU Scheme. They were under an obligation to export 4,80,000 nos. of socks annually for a period of 10 years with a minimum value addition of 48%. Due to various reasons the appellants were not able to comply with the export obligations scheme. It was stated by them that the machinery imported was not functioning properly and there w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed illicit clearance of the raw material imported. Therefore, he stated that even on this ground the order has to be set aside. Further, it was stated that at the time of de bonding of the unit, all the records have been submitted and there was no balance of stock available. Hence, they cannot be at this stage compelled to the duty on the raw material. It was also stated that the imported machinery was not functioning properly. As a result, the entire raw material, which was used resulted in the wastage and such waste materials have been destroyed in the presence of the Customs Officer. But however there is no record available to show that the materials have been destroyed with the permission of the Customs and also in their presence. In vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the appellant to show that the raw materials imported after use resulted in huge waste and have been destroyed by them after taking proper permission and in the presence of the Customs Officer. We do not find any record showing that the appellants had taken the consent of the Customs Officers and the goods had been destroyed in their presence. In the absence of such evidence we cannot fault the Revenue for demanding duty. Therefore, we have no other option but to confirm the duty on the unused raw material. However, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that the appellant had been put to a heavy loss by the import of the machinery and also non functioning of the unit, we set aside the penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
