2018 (8) TMI 1242 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI – 100% EOU – customs private bonded warehouse – whether the appellant has violated the Provisions of Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Notification No. 52/2003 -CUS in relation to capital goods which were imported without payment of duty?
–
Held that:- There is no dispute that the capital goods which were imported without payment of duty claiming the benefit of Notification No. 52/2003 were transferred out of the EOU after their importation and bonding in the EOU. Though, there is a claim of the appellant the machinery was not installed in DTA unit, it is a finding of the Adjudicating Authority that the machinery was installed and used for the manufacture of the goods in DTA unit – Both the Lower Authorities have recorded a concurrent finding and the machinery which were imported by claiming the exemption for installation in EOU, were not installed, were found in DTA. Appellant was not able to produce any documents to show tha
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Customs Act, 1962 to be a customs private bonded warehouse. They had imported one opto-tech free form lab set up with laser engraving mach, CNC blocker with premium software and accessories etc without payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 52/2003 – Cus dated 31.03.2003 vide Bill of Entry No. 6281016 dated 30.07.2014. After receipt of the goods to their factory, the appellant appeared to have diverted unauthorisedly the imported goods to their sister unit in DTA viz M/s Techtran Opthalmics Pvt. Ltd., (TOPL) located in Balanagar, Hyderabad and without payment of appropriate duties due when goods were transferred out the bonded warehouse. Therefore, on the basis of the investigation carried out by Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Hyderabad Zonal Unit, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant to confiscate the imported machinery and to demand an amount of ₹ 47,66,416/- being the duty not paid along with interest due thereon apart from the proposal t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ferred before the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority after following due process of law, as reduced the penalty imposed but upheld the Order-in-Original on the confirmation of the demands so raised. Revenue is aggrieved and is in appeal on such reduction of penalty while importer appellant is in appeal on merits. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant takes the Bench through the entire case records and submits that the capital goods were moved out of the EOU for testing purposes and there was no intention to permanently shift to same out of the bonded premises. He would submit that there is no allegation that the goods were used for production in Balanagar Unit. Since there was only a procedural violation, duty cannot be demanded also in the absence of contravention with intention to evade duty the penalty imposed on them is also not legally correct. 5. Learned Departmental Representative reiterates the findings of the First Appellate Authority. 6. On care
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =