2018 (7) TMI 311

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o.52/2003 Cus. Dt. 31/3/2003 and also Notification No.22/2003 CE dt. 31/3/2003. They obtained permission from jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner to sub contract part of the processing work. Accordingly they were given permission to carry out production on job work basis and permitted to remove capital goods procured / imported to their job work unit without payment of duty. While removing such capital goods to the DTA / Jobwork Unit, the appellant had removed goods in the nature of Assembly Flint System, Oil Press, Chinese plates, etc. The department was of the view that these items being machineries and not moulds, jigs, tool, fixtures cannot be removed from the EOU. That the Notification permits removal of only moulds, jigs, tool, fixture....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uty Commissioner, such allegation cannot be the basis for demand of duty invoking extended period. Similarly the appellant had removed capital goods which were domestically procured to the job workers permises. The appellant was under bonafide belief that the permission granted vide letter dt. 5/5/2004 would suffice for removal of locally procured capital goods. Since both the notifications (52/2003 and 22/2003) were similarly worded the appellant was under the impression that the permission given by Deputy Commissioner for removal of capital goods would apply for removal of capital goods domestically procured also. There is no allegation that the appellant has diverted the capital goods. The impugned items were removed to the job worker pr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ting permission for removal of capital goods for job work purposes, the Deputy Commissioner vide letter dt.5/5/2004 has granted permission to remove the capital goods as per notification 52/2003. The annexure to this permission letter shows the details of the capital goods for which permission has been allowed. These include the imported machineries removed by the appellant. Since the appellant has removed the capitals as per the permission given, the department cannot later allege violation of provision of notification 52/2003. We therefore find that the demand of Customs duty to the tune of Rs. 3,23,717/- is without any factual or legal basis and requires to be set aside which we hereby do. 6.  The second allegation is that the ap....