TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (3) TMI 825
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mported goods by their quality control department, it was found that the goods were rusted and fungus had formed and accordingly became unfit for packing the products; (iii) they requested permission to destroy the aforesaid imported Tin Plate, under the supervision of the Customs & Central Excise Officers. The appellants vide their letter dated 11-11-2004, inter alia stated vide their letter dated 10-11-2003 they have brought to the notice of the Assistant Commissioner that it appears that no permission was necessary from the department in terms of para 25.4 of Appendix 14-1 (EOUs) of EXIM Policy 2002-07 and as per the views of the Development Commissioner only an intimation Is sufficient, therefore, they are intimating about the destruction goods. Further that they are of the opinion that intimation regarding destruction of the said imported goods is sufficient and that they will remove the destructed imported goods within a week's time. The department held that the appellants did not intimate the details such as date and time of destruction, and place of destruction. As the appellants did not furnish the full details of the goods proposed to be destroyed, the letter dated 10-11-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Assistant Commissioner of Customs may subject to such condition as he may prescribe, permit destruction of reject waste and scrap materials without payment of duty within the 100% EOU or outside the said unit, where it is not possible or permissible to destroy the same within the said unit. In the instant case, the appellants have not placed any evidence on record to prove that they had obtained necessary permission from the JAC to destroy/remove the goods in question without payment of duty. From the foregoing, I find that the appellant has not followed the prescribed procedure under law for destruction of damaged goods for entitlement of remission of duty. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be rejected. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following order. ORDER The impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected. Appellants are aggrieved by the above said order and hence, are challenging the same. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the following sequence of events are submitted to press home the point that the impugned order is not correct and is improper. (a) 24 pallets of packing material namely "tin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsidering any of the grounds argued by the appellant. It was also the submission that the goods which were imported were destroyed in the EOU and hence, there is no need for any permission is a well settled law as decided by this Bench in the case of M/s. MacMillan India Ltd. v. CC, Bangalore as reported at 2008 (223) E.L.T. 449 (T) = 2007-TIOL-2319-CESTAT-BANG. It is also submitted that the department does not doubt that the goods were damaged but are only taking a technical or hyper-technical view that destruction was not done in their presence. It is the submission that the appellants were under bona fide belief that the goods could be destroyed after intimating the department. 4. The learned SDR appearing on behalf of the department reiterates the findings of the learned Commissioner (A) and submits that the appellants could not satisfy the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner that the imported goods have been rendered unfit for home consumption. It is also his submission that the goods were destroyed even before the verification by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner and hence, it cannot be considered that they have satisfied the conditions of the No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on case cannot be applied to goods deposited in 100% EOU. The Capital Goods imported in 100% EOU are meant for production of goods, which are ultimately to be exported. All the 100% EOUs have got warehousing lincences and their validity period is periodically extended. When the Capital Goods are imported, the initial bonding period is 5 years and later, the period can be further extended. In these extension also, a very liberal approach is adopted by the Board and there are very many instructions to that effect. In the Circular of 2005, it is stated that even if the manufacturer or the importer has not applied for extension of warehousing period in respect of the imported goods, the very fact that the warehouse licence has been extended is sufficient and automatically the warehousing period in respect of the imported goods, the very fact that the warehouse licence has been extended is sufficient and automatically the warehousing period also may be got extended. These liberal approaches have to be appreciated by the learned Commissioner. Moreover, we have noted the description of the goods, imported namely, the computers, fax machines, key boards, image setting system, scanner, lase....