https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35132 Pre-deposit of duty and penalty was maintained because the demand arose from admitted non-fulfilment of export obligations and breach of exemption conditions, not from debonding of the unit. The applicant's request to treat the demand as premature and to reduce the deposit by allowing depreciation on imported capital goods was rejected, as the closure of the unit and continuing default supported the existing demand. The Tribunal also held that the cited authorities on debonding and depreciation did not govern the dispute, and even on the depreciation basis argued by the applicant, the estimated customs duty still justified the amount already ordered for deposit. No depreciation was available for excise duty. en-us Tue, 03 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35132 Pre-deposit of duty and penalty was maintained because the demand arose from admitted non-fulfilment of export obligations and breach of exemption conditions, not from debonding of the unit. The applicant's request to treat the demand as premature and to reduce the deposit by allowing depreciation on imported capital goods was rejected, as the closure of the unit and continuing default supported the existing demand. The Tribunal also held that the cited authorities on debonding and depreciation did not govern the dispute, and even on the depreciation basis argued by the applicant, the estimated customs duty still justified the amount already ordered for deposit. No depreciation was available for excise duty. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 03 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35132