9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rwise available is sought be denied as final exit order was not given by the STPI authorities at the time of assessment. – Held that - If this reasoning is taken to logical end then, as the unit is still EHTP only nil duty can be assessed. Such an approach would lead to a situation where they would never be able to exit. This cannot be the intention of the policy - The procedural violations, if any, are only of technical in nature – benefit of exemption to be extended. - C/945/2005 - C/377/2008-(PB), - Dated:- 25-9-2008 - Justice S.N. Jha, President and Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) Shri L.B. Yadav, DR, for the Appellant. Shri Atul Gupta, Company Secretary, for the Respondent. [Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) (for the B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h technically the unit is under EHTP scheme on the date of assessment, payment of duty arose only because of their de-bonding and exiting from the scheme; while clearing from the customs bond, the benefits of notification otherwise available have to be extended. Accordingly, he set aside the demand. 4. Leaned DR submits that as long as the unit continues to be a EHTP unit, the question of extending concession available in respect of any other scheme does not arise. These are not cases of clearance of imported goods at the time of import, the case relates to clearance of goods from EHTP unit subsequent to in principle approval of de-bonding and the actual assessment has taken place actually before the final exit order. Therefore, the Not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E.L.T. 233 (Tri-Del) wherein the following decision in the case of Thermax Private Ltd., decision was taken that use within the factory of production would mean that the goods in question should not be used in any other factory i.e. anywhere other than the factory for the purpose of manufacture of textile and textile articles. He submits that in both the case, the decision emphasises on substantive compliance of the conditions rather than on the procedure. 6.1 We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides. The goods were imported at nil rate of duty as per the Notification available to such imports by EHTP unit. We find that as a unit in EHTP, they were having a warehouse under the Customs Act and were operating under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the status the unit was with the jurisdiction of the same officers. To hold that in such a situation they shall not be eligible for benefit of any notification and that they are available only at the time of import will be contrary to the understanding and practice in respect of clearance from warehouses. The procedural violations, if any, are only of technical in nature and there can be, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, no allegation of any possible diversion, In fact, there is no such allegation or finding. 7. In view of the above, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Appeal filed by the department is rejected. (Dictated pronounced in the open Court) - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
