2006 (7) TMI 501

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dated 22-4-2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Guntur (E/1041/2004). 2. Shri B.N. Gururaj, the learned Advocate appeared for the appellants and Shri K. Sambi Reddy, the learned JDR for the Revenue. E/1041/2004 3. M/s. Delta Park Aqua Ltd. is a 100% EOU and an Aquaculture Unit. Due to various reasons, such as bacterial disease, slump in the market, etc., they were not in a position to fulfil completely the export obligations. As a 100% EOU, the appellants imported Capital Goods free of duty. Even indigenous goods were procured without payment of duty under the EOU Scheme. The Development Commissioner initiated proceedings against the appellants for non-fulfilment of export obligations and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e benefit of depreciation as the Capital Goods had been put to use as per Notification No. 13/81-Cus. The export obligation could not be fulfilled due to disease, virus attack and CRZ Limits imposed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Since these circumstances were beyond the control of the appellant, there is no justification for denial of the benefit of depreciation. 5. After going through the records of the case, we are inclined to remand the matter to the Original Authority for giving the benefit of depreciation on the Capital Goods in accordance with the relevant Boards' Instructions and decide the matter. Thus the appeal is allowed by way of remand. C/278/2005 6. M/s. Bluegold Maritech (International) Ltd. is a 100% EOU A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... benefit of depreciation has not been given. (iii)   The Adjudicating Authority has wholly ignored the fact that the appellant had substantially exported shrimps in discharge of export obligation. (iv)   This is not a case of willful default in the discharge of export obligation. At least in the matter of imposing penalty, these mitigating factors ought to have been weighed. (v)     Duty has been demanded not only on the Capital Goods but also on raw materials and consumables which have already been used. (vi)   The appellant has discharged 51% of NFEP and 76% of the export obligation. On equitable grounds, the respondent ought to have restricted the duty demand proportionately t....