TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 1226
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atter for passing fresh order. 2. The appellant established a 100% EOU at Bhiwadi for the manufacture and export of tissue culture plants. The private bonded warehouse was licensed for manufacture in terms of customs notification No. 13/81-Cus dated 09/02/1981. This notification was succeeded by notification No. 53/97-Cus dated 03/06/1997. On account of failure to carry on their business, their factory had to be shut down and they approached Development Commissioner in February 1997 for de-bonding of the unit. They further approached the Assistant Commissioner for working out and payment of the customs duties. In the 1st round of litigation, Commissioner passed the order dated 02/12/1999 in which the customs duty was demanded on the capi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing for the revenue. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that they will be entitled for depreciation. In support thereof they cited the following case laws wherein depreciation has been allowed while the de-bonding export oriented units : (i) Khabros Steel India Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2006 (194) E.L.T. 117 (Tri, - Del.); (ii) Anjaleem Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs, CCE & CUS, Vadodara reported in 2007 (210) E.L.T. 204 (Tri.-Ahmd,); (iii) CC, Chandigarh vs. Advance Components Engg. reported in 2014 - TIOL - 1322 - CESTAT - DEL.; (iv) Kumar Housing Corporation Ltd, vs. CCE, Pune-III reported in 2014 - TIOL - 2887 - CESTAT MUM (v) Shiva Analyticals (India) Limited, Bangalore vs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts manufacture and export, the business of the unit did not take off as expected. By January 1997 the unit was closed and was no longer in a position to undertake any manufacture and export of their goods. The notification No. 13/81- customs was replaced by the successor notification No. 53/87 customs dated 3rd of June 1997. This notification deals with the disposal of capital goods imported for setting up of the unit in clause 5. The said clause 5 is reproduced below: "where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs that the said unit has been allowed by the Development Commissioner or the said Board to clear any of the said goods for being taken to any other place in India in accordance with the export an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mum of 90%. 11. From a careful reading of the above clause of the notification No. 53/97 customs dated 3rd of June 1997, it is seen that the capital goods at the time of clearance will be entitled to payment of customs duty on depredated value provided that the said unit has been allowed by the Development Commissioner to clear such goods in DTA. In the present case we find that the unit commenced its production in the year 1994. The appellant has approached the Development Commissioner for de-bonding of the unit as early as 4th of February 1997. The adjudication order passed by the Commissioner originally, demanding customs duty on capital goods was passed in the year 1999. However as we have noted in the earlier paragraphs, this order ....