Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the duty demand, interest and penalty on imported capital goods survived after the unit was permitted to re-export the goods and to exit the Export Oriented Unit scheme.
Analysis: The unit had been permitted by the competent development authority and the jurisdictional excise authorities to re-export the imported capital goods. The record also showed that the goods were re-exported in original packed condition under the prescribed customs and central excise procedure. The Commissioner found that the Department failed to establish non-fulfilment of the conditions for exit from the Export Oriented Unit scheme under Para 6.18(e) of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-2009 and that the imported goods, having been re-exported as permitted, did not attract continuing duty liability. No contrary evidence was produced to dislodge those findings.
Conclusion: The duty demand, interest and penalty were unsustainable and the dismissal of the proceedings was upheld in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected and the order dropping the proceedings was sustained, as the permitted re-export and compliance with the applicable export-oriented unit requirements negated further customs duty liability.
Ratio Decidendi: Where imported capital goods under an Export Oriented Unit scheme are lawfully permitted for re-export and the conditions for exit from the scheme are not shown to have been breached, no further duty demand survives.