2018 (11) TMI 763

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t submitted that in the present case, appeal has been filed against the letter dt. 17/01/2018 issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin wherein he has rejected the request for extension of time for installation of machinery imported under EPCG Scheme vide Notification No.97/2004-Cus dt. 17/09/2004 on the ground that the assessee has failed to comply with the directions of the Hon'ble CESTAT vide Final Order No.20036/2015 dt. 05/01/2015. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no consequential demand of duty, interest or penalty involved in the present appeal. Consequently, the mandatory predeposit in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by the appellant is not required in the present case. 2. After hearing....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted capital goods along with interest. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals), who vide Order-in-Appeal dt. 05/06/2012 rejected the appeal on the ground that there was no justification for the delay in installation of the capital goods. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the CESTAT and the CESTAT vide Final Order No.20036/2015 dt. 05/01/2015 granted extension of time for installation of imported goods till December 2015 considering the genuiness and the bona fide nature of the delay on the part of the appellant. But in spite of the extension given by the Tribunal till December 2015, the appellant could not complete the installation and thereafter sought extension further ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itted that the appellant could not complete the installation on account of shortage of funds and now the Government has released some funds and the appellants are in process of installation and is only praying for some more time to complete the installation. 7. On the other hand, the learned AR justified the rejection of request for extension of time on the ground that sufficient time has been given to the appellant for installation of the capital goods but they are not completing the installation expeditiously. 8. After considering the submissions of both the sides and perusal of records, and the previous order of the Tribunal dt. 05/01/2015, we find that the appellants are a Government of Kerala undertaking and is primarily dependin....