2019 (2) TMI 266

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... order-in-original no. 12/Central Excise/2008 dated 22nd July 2008 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune, the appellant-assessee entered into a scheme of amalgamation to merge M/s Pune Software Park Pvt Ltd with M/s Capgemini India Private Limited and obtained the statutory approvals necessitating the present application for alteration of cause title. Having perused the supporting documents, we allow the application and direct the Registry to make the necessary changes. As the appeals are also listed for disposal today, we take up those with corresponding amendments. 2. The appellant at one time known as Software Technology Park Ltd, was issued with 'private customs bonded warehouse' license under section 58 and section 59 of Customs Act....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r no. 27/98-Cus dated 21st April 1998 of Central Board of Excise & Customs requiring the higher of the transaction value or the depreciated value to be the assessable value. The assessee-appellant challenges the recovery for failure to cite the correct exemption notification and for having travelled beyond the bar of limitation. 4. According to Learned Author Representative, incorrect citing of a provision in the show cause notice does not vitiate the exercise of legislatively sanctioned authority to recover legislatively approved taxes. Reliance is placed on the decision of JK Steel Limited v. Union of India [1978 (2) ELT (J355) (SC)] and Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta v. Pradyumna Steel Limited [1996 (82) ELT 441 (SC)] of the Hon'....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....red during the period of validity of the warehousing bond or at any time thereafter. It is seen that the demand for recovery was triggered by the expiry of the warehousing bond that transformed the bonded area into non-bonded area. Adoption of that as the relevant date for computation of the depreciated value would not be at variance with the circular of Central Board of Excise & Customs cited by Learned Authorised Representative. Any alternative determinant of duty recovery would necessitate recourse to section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 which would, irredeemably, be beyond the competence of any adjudicating authority owing to bar of limitation. The grievance of Revenue is, therefore, misdirected. The acceptable instrument of recovery under s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... could be invoked. Such is not the case in the show cause notice leading to the impugned proceedings: the demand invoked under section 72 of Customs Act, 1962, which is contingent upon expiry of the warehousing period or removal from such warehouse, has no such bar incorporated therein. 8. It is not in dispute that the warehousing period expired in December 1998 and, if the appellant was interested in not extinguishing the privilege of exemption, application for renewal should have been filed. It would appear from the facts and circumstances that the importer appellant had, after ownership had passed on to M/s VSNL, ceased to retain interest in the continued operation of the asset under the exemption notification. However, it was the impor....