TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 427
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aterials valued at Rs. 60 lakhs duty free. They were also permitted to procure indigenous capital goods, consumables etc. worth Rs. 164.20 lakhs without payment of duty subject to the condition that the entire production is exported within a minimum value addition of 44%. Subsequently, the LOP was modified by the Development Commissioner, SEEPZ, Mumbai vide a letter dated 30-9-2004 wherein the export obligation was modified and they were required to achieve net foreign exchange earning of US$ 21,08,888.00. The appellant was also granted a licence for a private bonded warehouse by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner vide a letter dated 22-4-1996 and the appellant was permitted to import capital goods, consumables etc. under Notification No. 126/94-Cus., dated 3-6-1994. During April, 1996 to August, 2000 the appellant imported capital goods and components thereof, valued at Rs. 3,09,32,811/- under Notification No. 126/94-Cus., dated 3-6-1994. They also imported raw materials and consumables valued at Rs. 24,69,690/- during June, 1997 to July, 2001 under the said Notification. The appellant also procured domestically, capital goods to the tune of Rs. 16,93,338/- during 1996-1997....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Customs Act, 1962, confiscation of the indigenous goods under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and penalty under the said Rule read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The case was adjudicated by the Commissioner vide the impugned order and the above duty demands were confirmed along with the interest thereon. The imported goods were confiscated under Section 111(o) and a fine of Rs. 3,00,000/- were imposed in lieu of confiscation. A penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed on the appellant under Section 112a(ii) of Customs Act, 1962. The indigenously procured goods were confiscated under Section 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 with an option to redeem the same on fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 25 of the said Rules. Hence the appellant is before us. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant makes the following submissions :- (a) The goods have been imported/indigenously procured vide Notifications No. 126/94-Cus. and 136/94-C.E. and, therefore, Notification No. 52/2003-Cus. and 22/2003-C.E. have no application what so-ever for computation of duty demands. (b) Notification No. 126/94-Cus. provides for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed similar items domestically under Notification No. 136/94-C.E., dated 10-11-1994. It is also on record that the raw materials, consumables etc. have been consumed in the manufacture and export of cut flowers and none is available for debonding. The only items available for debonding are imported/indigenously procured capital goods. These goods have been procured under Notification No. 126/94-Cus. Para 2 of the said Notification reads as follows :- "Without prejudice to any other provisions contained in this notification, (the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs) may, subject to such conditions and limitations as he may deem fit to impose under the circumstances of the case for the proper safeguard of the revenue interest and also subject to such permission of the Development Commissioner or Board of Approvals where it is exclusively required under the Export and Import Policy, allow the said units to clear any of the said goods for being taken to any other place in India in accordance with the Export-Import Policy - (a) such clearance of capital goods and office equipments may be allowed on payment of an amount equal to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....port obligation scheme makes no difference to duty liability." In the said case the Tribunal further held that the imported goods are eligible for depreciation as provided for in the Notification. 6.2 In Khabros Steel (I) Ltd. (supra) case, this Tribunal in a similar situation held as follows :- "The appellants were permitted to import the capital goods, component parts and raw material etc. as also to procure the same without payment of duty from indigenous sources by availing the exemption under the Notification on the condition that they will export the entire goods for a period of 10 years. But they did not fulfil this condition. They have applied for debonding of their unit which means that they have neither fulfilled their export obligation nor are they willing or are in a position to do the same. In this view of the matter, there is a clear liability on them to pay the customs and central excise duties on the goods which were procured duty free with this obligation. However, the liability of the appellants to pay the duty is only on the depreciated value. The amount of redemption fine and penalty are also to be redetermined in accordance with the depreciated value of....