TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 766
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the case are that during the period 1994-95 to 1997- 98, M/s Blue Gold Maritech (International) Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the respondent), which is a 100% EOU, had imported capital goods/raw materials without payment of duty under Notification No. 188/1993-Cus dt. 27.12.1993. They had also procured indigenous goods without payment of Central Excise Duty availing benefit under Notification No. 57/1994-CE dt. 01.03.1994 and Notification No. 10/1995-CE dt. 23.02.1995. The date of commencement of production is 01.08.1996. As per the conditions stipulated under the Customs notifications and the Central Excise notifications, cited supra, the importer has to fulfill the export obligation specified in the Letter of Permission (LOP)/ the le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....03.2005 and 16.07.2009 and to issue a speaking order. On the fourth round of litigation, vide the present OIO dt. 03.07.2012, the Commissioner, after observing the principles of natural justice, has found that the respondent has failed to fulfil minimum export performance and the minimum NFE. However, on the issue of whether depreciation is to be allowed till date of debonding or till the date of payment, held that depreciation is admissible till the date of payment of duty, against which, the present appeal has been filed by the department before this Tribunal. 4. Learned AR for the department submits that as per Para (3) of Conditions in Notification 188/93-Cus dated 27-12-1993, the importer shall pay the customs duty on capital goods,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Development Commissioner on 18-05-2006. Hence, depreciation has to be allowed till the date of debonding and in case of failure of a unit to achieve positive NFE, depreciation shall be allowed in the same proportion as the achieved portion of NFE. He further submits that this is a classic case of intentional delay by the Respondent. There were three rounds of litigation earlier resulting in the Third remand Order by the Hon'ble Tribunal to adjudicate afresh in the denovo proceedings. The considerable delay in the matter leaves the revenue at the mercy of the respondent, if the depreciation till actual payment of duty. It will bring to the scenario where delaying the payment results in no payment to be made. Such an interpretation leads to a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the records. 8. As per the factual matrix of this case, the only one issue to be decided is that whether depreciation is to be allowed up to the date of payment of duty or up to the date of debonding. 9. Para 3 of Notification No.122/93-Cus dt. 27.12.1993 provides that the importer shall pay the customs duty on capital goods, etc., on depreciated value calculated at the rate of exchange prevailing on the date of filing of bill of entry at the time of import and the rate of duty being the rate applicable on the date the undertaking ceases to be the hundred percent export oriented undertaking. 10. We further note that Notification No. 196/94-Cus dt. 08.12.1994, which rescinded Notification No. 188/93-Cus, under the condition (8), a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the same cannot absolve the appellant from their responsibility to pay the duty..." "...Special concession was given only in those cases were the final products would require to be exported and earn foreign exchange. The conditions in the notification being post-import condition and being continuing conditions, the benefits of the notification can be denied on non-fulfilment of such condition. As such, though we may have sympathy with the appellant, but we cannot relax the condition of notification and extend the benefit to them." 13. We note that reliance was also placed on the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Kedia Infotech Systems Ltd (supra), wherein, it was held as under: "4. ...... On perusal of records, ....