TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether depreciation on imported and indigenous capital goods was to be allowed for the relevant period and the assessable value reworked accordingly; (ii) whether duty demand on raw materials could be sustained on the footing that only 60% of the materials had been consumed; (iii) whether confiscation of capital goods and raw materials, along with redemption fine and penalty, was sustainable where failure to meet export obligation was attributed to business exigencies beyond the assessee's control.
Issue (i): Whether depreciation on imported and indigenous capital goods was to be allowed for the relevant period and the assessable value reworked accordingly.
Analysis: The assessee had procured capital goods under the EOU scheme and the dispute was as to the period for which depreciation should be granted in computing duty liability. The Board's circular governing the matter and the Tribunal's earlier decisions were relied upon to support depreciation from the date the goods were put to use till the relevant date of clearance or duty payment, subject to the factual position that the unit had ceased operations. The Tribunal accepted that the goods had been used in the manufacturing process and that assessable value had to be redetermined in accordance with the applicable depreciation principle.
Conclusion: Depreciation was held admissible, and the matter was remanded for redetermination of the assessable value of the capital goods.
Issue (ii): Whether duty demand on raw materials could be sustained on the footing that only 60% of the materials had been consumed.
Analysis: The Commissioner had proceeded on an that 40% of the raw materials remained unutilised because export obligation had been fulfilled only to that extent. The Tribunal found no supporting evidence in the order to contradict the assessee's case that the entire quantity of raw materials had been consumed in producing goods already exported. In the absence of evidence for segregating any balance quantity as unutilised, the demand on that basis could not be maintained.
Conclusion: The duty demand on the alleged unutilised 40% of raw materials was set aside.
Issue (iii): Whether confiscation of capital goods and raw materials, along with redemption fine and penalty, was sustainable where failure to meet export obligation was attributed to business exigencies beyond the assessee's control.
Analysis: The Tribunal accepted that the unit had closed because of lack of orders, internal competition, low prices and working capital difficulties, and that the failure to fulfil export obligation was not shown to be wilful or mala fide. In such circumstances, the Tribunal applied the settled principle that confiscation and penalty are not automatic merely because a breach of the notification conditions has occurred, especially where the default is not deliberate and the surrounding circumstances justify a lenient view.
Conclusion: Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were set aside.
Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained relief against the confiscation, redemption fine, penalty and the demand on raw materials, while the duty liability on capital goods was sent back for fresh computation after allowing depreciation as directed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an EOU's failure to fulfil export obligation is not shown to be wilful and the materials relied on by the department do not establish unutilised inputs, confiscation and penalty cannot stand, and depreciation on capital goods must be worked out on the legally applicable basis before final duty determination.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
