TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (9) TMI 165
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the order is not in terms of the remand instructions. 2. The appellant was an EOU and imported capital goods without payment of duty. Similarly, it procured indigenously some capital goods without payment of duty. It stopped production and the export by December 1992. Thereupon, it was incumbent upon the appellant to discharge duty liability on the capital goods received without payment of duty, since it had not fulfilled the condition of the Letter of Permission (LOP). The dispute in the present proceedings is in relation to the quantum of duty payable on capital goods, as well as whether duty of over Rs. 23 lakhs was required to be paid on consignment it had cleared from its factory under Bond on 23-12-92 for export. 3. The disput....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le on the capital goods and is Rs. 7,19,291.75 for imported capital goods and Rs. 19,786/- for indigenously procured goods. 4. Depreciation is almost a rule of nature. Business accounting invariably provides for it. Thus, the appellant's claim for depreciation is in terms of common practice. Whether de-bonding of old equipment was in terms of permission or not, should not affect depreciation. Since LOP has been cancelled, the appellant cannot continue as EOU and has to de-bond the capital goods and pay customs duty. It is also noted that depreciation up to 90% on straight line method remains approved in the Circulars of the Board. In these circumstances, the duty payable by the appellant on the capital goods would be the amounts indi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his submission. It is, therefore, contended that in the absence of the proof of export, Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 23,79,369/- is clearly recoverable under Rule 14A and the demand cannot be held time-barred, as there is no time prescribed to make a demand in the case of failure on the part of the noticee to furnish the proof of export. We have considered these submissions. We have already held that there is a continuous obligation for exporting the goods and no time-bar for the purpose of demand of duty would operate. The export of the goods under this AR.4 is also part of the same obligation. However, it is observed that under the proviso to Rule 12(1)(b), the Commissioner of Central Excise is empowered to allow rebate, even if a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bond from the factory. AR-4 mentioned the container No. as 3289679. The appellant has referred to Combined Transport Liner Bill of Lading which also mentions an endorsement "Shipped on Board dated 25th January 1993 for S.S.S.M. Pvt. Ltd." This document also mentions the same container number. In addition, there is a mention of GR No. AC 219760 dated 21-10-92. The shipping bill mentions GR number AC 219787 dated 21-10-92, invoice No. 3 dated 22-7-92 and LC No. 159265. The FOB value mentioned in the shipping bill is US $ 82105 and Indian Rs. 23,11,189.20. The contention of the learned consultant is that since the container number in the Bill of Lading and the GR number are the same as the container sent from the factory, it should be accepted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed consultant would answer that this is only a typographical error inasmuch as the other particulars like LC numbers all tally. Learned SDR would, however, contend that the collateral evidence is not sufficient for confirmation of export in view of the discrepancy already noted as well the fact that, earlier, there was case of filing false papers against the appellant. 7. As already noted, the original papers relating to exporter are not available. The appellant had contended that these had been submitted before the jurisdictional authorities and the authorities disowned receipt. It is in this context that Tribunal directed to determine the dispute based on collateral evidence. Clearly, it was improper on the part of the Commissioner to ....