TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (10) TMI 329
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....harmaceutical formulations such as Tablets and Capsules. Under the Notification No. 13/81-Cus. dated 9-2-1981, the appellants imported capital goods duty free. All the machines imported were installed and put to use in the manufacture of the goods to be exported. However in respect of one machine, the appellants could not install the same and put to use for production. Hence the Revenue proceeded against the appellants by issue of Show Cause Notice dated 21-9-2005, proposing confiscation of the machinery under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 and demand of duty. Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was also proposed. The Adjudicating authority confiscated the machinery under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellants to demand duty as the said machinery has not been installed within the stipulated period in terms of Notification No. 13/81-Cus. as amended. (ii) The machinery was imported under Notification No. 13/81-Cus. dated 9-2-81. The above Notification did not stipulate any time limit to install the capital goods imported. The Notification No. 13/81-Cus. was rescinded by the Notification No. 53/97-Cus. dated 3-6-97. This Notification also did not contain any time limit for installation of the capital goods. The above Notification was amended by the Notification No. 65/99 dated 19-5-1999. This amending notification stipulates the time limit. But the amendment is effective from 19-5-99. Therefore this condition cannot b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tuation, they could not take a decision to install the said machinery. (vii) The Board in Circular No. 21/95-Cus. dated 10-3-95 has clarified that the liability of Customs duty on goods exported by 100% E.O.U. arises at the stage of the unit being de-bonded. The Board has clarified that the demand should be confirmed only after a definite conclusion has been arrived at by the Development Commissioner. This is not a case of de-bonding nor of violation of the conditions of Notification No. 13/81. Actually the DC has extended the status of 100% E.O.U. to the appellants for further period of 5 years. He has further granted the permission to export machinery. Therefore the conclusion of the Commissioner that the condition of notification ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding and the appellant is liable to pay the duty forgone. 6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The Fluid Bed Granulator imported free of duty under Notification No. 13/81 on 16-9-95 could not be installed for the reasons stated by the appellants. It is seen that the due to International market situation, increased production of the goods using the imported Fluid Bed Granulator would not be a sound business proposition. The appellants had to abandon the idea of installation of the machinery. Thus we find that the non-installation of the machinery is due to unforeseen circumstances. In other words, there is no deliberate violation of conditions of the Notification No. 13/81. In this situation, the appellants approa....