2000 (6) TMI 76 - AT - Customs

Premature Duty Demand Overturned, Evidence Insufficient, Remand for Reconsideration

The Tribunal found that the demand for duty was premature as the Development Commissioner had extended the EOU status. Due to lack of evidence of ... Export Issues involved: The basic issue concerns non-fulfilment of the minimum value addition of goods exported by a 100% EOU.Summary:The appellants were required to pre-deposit duty amounts under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Central Excise Act, 1944, along with interest and penalties. The order impugned confirmed duties due to non-fulfilment of value addition requirements for goods exported by the EOU.The learned Counsel argued that the order was premature as the Development Commissioner had extended the EOU status beyond five years, contrary to the order impugned. Referring to relevant Circulars and a Tribunal decision, it was contended that the demand for duty was premature as the unit had not been de-bonded by the appropriate authority.After considering the submissions and records, the Tribunal found that the demand for duty was premature since the Development Commissioner had extended the EOU status. As there was no evidence of clandestine removal of goods, the confirmation of duty was set aside, and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration if the unit is de-bonded in the future. The Commissioner was instructed to follow the relevant Board's Circular during any new proceedings.