2022 (6) TMI 995

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Customs duty under the provisions of Notification 13/81-Cus., dated 9-8-1981 and imported capital goods. On 22.05.1993 appellant applied for D-Bonding of the 100% EOU and by letter dated 07.07.1994, the department of Industrial Development permitted the Appellant to clear capital goods without payment of duty and to gift the imported capital goods to an educational institution which was eligible to import such goods without payment of duty. The department issued show cause notice dated 06.11.1997 demanding duty on the imported goods. The Appellant on 05.03.1998 applied to the office of Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Vadodara for completion of De-Bonding formalities and for clearance of the goods without payment of du....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and for interest. While the said two appeals were pending before the Tribunal, the Assistant Commissioner, in pursuance of the direction contained in the Order-In-appeal dated 14.09.2001 passed the order-in-original dated 28.03.2002 and worked out the duty demand amount of Rs. 12,43,033/- by allowing depreciation of value of imported capital goods upto July 1994 when permission for de-bonding was granted by the Ministry of Industry. In Appeal, the said Order-In-Original dated 28.03.2002 was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and appellant thereafter preferred Appeal before the Tribunal. The said three appeals before the tribunal were disposed of by the common order dated 17.10.2006. By the said order tribunal held that duty was payable by....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....which had directed that depreciation must be allowed right upto the date of payment of duty on the goods which were still in the bonded warehouse. 2.1 He also submits that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly proceeded on the basis that the Appellant had not filed any reply before the adjudicating authority and that therefore the ground raised before him was additional evidence, which cannot be permitted in view of Rule 5 of Central Excise (Appeals) Rules 2001. He has clearly disregarded the letter dated 05.07.2008 of Appellant by which appellant had submitted that when depreciation is allowed upto date of payment of duty as directed by the Tribunal, the value would be NIL and therefore duty payable is NIL. That apart, the ground r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ideration, we have to place on record our disapproval of the action of both the Lower authorities in not following the directions of the Tribunal. Both the authorities have clearly violated the terms of remand order of the Tribunal. The matter was remanded back by Tribunal with the direction as under : "8. As regards the period for which depreciation is to be allowed, in the light of the Tribunal's order in Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Vadodara v. Solitaire Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. - 2003 (152) E.L.T. 384 we hold that depreciation shall be allowed up to the date of payment of duty as per the language of the explanation to Notification 13/81 itself, and rejecting the contention of the Revenue that depreciation shall be a....