9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... technology failure. It is submitted that the goods at the time of import were intended to be used in finished products which were intended for export and therefore the demand of duty on raw materials cannot be sustained. We are afraid that the said argument is not tenable. The appellant having not fulfilled the export obligation and not used the raw materials for manufacture of finished products for export, the exemption of the notification is not available. Demand of Special Additional Duty - We remand this issue to the original authority who is directed to verify the date of imports made by the appellant and in case, such goods have been imported prior to 1.6.1998, the demand of Special Additional Duty cannot be sustained and will be set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st their exports was on the negative list. It appeared to the department that the appellant is required to pay duties of Customs and Excise on the full value of capital goods / inputs / consumables / spares imported under Procurement Certificate and purchased under CT3 Certificate and available as such in all semi-finished or finished condition in the factory. The duty liability on the goods worked out to be Rs.5,22,46,717/- of which customs duty was Rs.5,13,97,367/- and Central Excise duty was Rs.8,49,350/-. The appellant paid Customs duty of Rs.12,04,613/- and excise duty of Rs.6966/- on 3.1.2009. 2. As it appeared that the appellant has not paid the actual duty liability and also has failed to ensure NFEP show cause notice dt. 21.03.2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en approached the Central Excise department, Hosur vide letter dt. 21.12.2009 to get the applicable duties quantified. The appellant was directed to pay duties as a pre-condition for issuing a No Due Certificate in order to debond and exit from EOU scheme. Subsequently, the appellant was informed vide letter dt. 24.9.2010 that the debonding can be considered only after issuance of show cause notice as the appellant has not paid the duty. 6. Show cause notice dt. 21.03.2013 was thus issued by the Department. The original authority has confirmed the demand of Customs duty on imported capital goods, spares and raw materials and Central Excise duties on domestic capital goods in terms of relevant notifications along with interest. The adjudicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not used in the manufacture of articles and export . The condition is that the raw material should be used in the manufacture of articles which are intended for export. There is no denial in the present case that the raw materials were indeed intended for use in the manufacture of goods to exported but could not be exported due to technology failure. Thus, the demand of duty cannot be sustained. The Ld. Counsel relied upon the decision in the case of Pudumjee Plant Laboratories Ltd. Vs CCE Pune 2013 (295) ELT 593 (Tri.-Mumbai). 10. The second ground is that the demand of Special Additional Duty cannot be sustained. The said duty was introduced only w.e.f. 1.6.1998. The capital goods and raw materials were imported were prior to 1996-97 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailure. It is submitted that the goods at the time of import were intended to be used in finished products which were intended for export and therefore the demand of duty on raw materials cannot be sustained. We are afraid that the said argument is not tenable. The appellant having not fulfilled the export obligation and not used the raw materials for manufacture of finished products for export, the exemption of the notification is not available. 15. The decision relied by the learned counsel in the case of Pudumjee Plant Laboratories Ltd. (supra) is not applicable to this case. The said decision is with regard to depreciation on capital goods and not on the duty demand on raw materials. 16. The second issue is with regard to the demand of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e liable to pay that duty. The ratio of that decision will apply to the facts before us. The same view in fact has been communicated in the trade notice dated 5-1-99 issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise reproduced in 1999 (106) E.L.T. T28. There is therefore no legal authority for this demand. However, the aspect whether the imports are made prior to 1.6.1998 requires verification. For this purpose, we remand this issue to the original authority who is directed to verify the date of imports made by the appellant and in case, such goods have been imported prior to 1.6.1998, the demand of Special Additional Duty cannot be sustained and will be set aside by the original authority. The appellant is not liable to pay Special Additional D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
