TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 763
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....em. 2. The brief facts are that: i. The appellant is a 100% EOU-STP unit, holding Customs License for warehousing and in bond manufacturing at their premises located at No.16/1, Residency Road, Bangalore (Unit-II). ii. The appellant also holds another customs licence for their premises located at No.55/35, Vyalikaval, Bangalore (Unit-I). iii. The appellant imported/locally procured several goods availing benefit of Notification No.140/91-Cus. dt. 22/10/1991 and No.52/2003-Cus. dt. 31/03/2003. iv. The Department had the intelligence that the appellant s Unit-I had transferred certain goods to Unit-II having additional premises at BTM Layout Bangalore and the goods transferred were obsolete and not usabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant paid the duty of Rs. 11,90,389/- along with interest Rs. 6,71,086/- x. In view of the above facts, the Department issued show-cause(SCN) notice proposing confiscation of the goods and demanded differential duty of Rs. 19,94,777/- and Rs. 12,14,821/- and also proposed imposition of penalties from the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act. xi. The show-cause notice was adjudicated by the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, who confirmed the demand of duty for Rs. 19,94,512/- and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 20 lakhs along with imposition of penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the appellant. 3. Both sides have been heard. 4. The main pleadings of the appellant are: i. The impugned order s fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 68 of the Act read with Section 15(1)(b) of the Customs Act. ix. Capital goods listed in Annexure A to the SCN are computer parts and accessories; these were used and there is no question of installing the same. x. These goods were computer and its parts and accessories, they require constant upgradation of software and anti-virus applications; therefore they were de-commissioned for brief period for upgradation and thereafter the capital goods in question were used for export of ITES. xi. Therefore, the finding of the Commissioner that the goods became obsolete is not supported by evidence. xii. Capital goods listed in Annexure B to SCN were computer and its accessories, which were bonded during 200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tents of the same. 6. After having carefully considered the facts on record and the submissions of both sides, it appears that the concerned officials of the appellant themselves have admitted that goods had become obsolete and the same had not been put to use. Further there was no evidence put up on record that when the goods were usable and had operational life, they were installed and put to use by the appellant. When it is so, the demand of duty of Rs. 19,94,512/- confirmed by the impugned order is hereby sustained. The case laws cited by the appellant are not applicable for the present facts. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to any relief on the demand of duty. 7. Further considering the facts and circumstances on record,....