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, on de-bonding of a STPI unit, depreciation for duty liability was to be computed under the handbook procedure claimed by the assessee or at the rate specifically prescribed in Notification No. 52/2003-Cus. dated 31-3-2003.
Analysis: The handbook procedure did not clearly show whether the stated depreciation related to income-tax depreciation or to some other purpose. The exemption notification under which the goods had been imported specifically provided for depreciation at 20% per annum at the time of de-bonding. Since the assessee had availed the benefit of that notification, the duty liability on exit from the scheme had to be determined in accordance with its express terms, and no overriding provision was shown to displace the notification.
Conclusion: The depreciation rate fixed under the notification governed the duty computation, and the assessee's claim based on the handbook procedure was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The duty demand based on depreciation at 20% per annum on de-bonding was upheld, and the appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification expressly prescribes the basis of depreciation for de-bonding, that specific condition governs the duty liability and cannot be displaced by a more general procedure lacking overriding force.