TATA ELXSI LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from Order -in -Original No. 22/2003 -Cus., dated 29 -12 -2003 by which demands have been confirmed by denying the benefit of Notification No. 140/91 -Cus., dated 22 -10 -1991 in respect of imported capital goods during the period 1993 -98 without payment of duty and warehoused in the bonded premises under Section 61 of the Customs Act. The appellant had obtained the extension period up to 23 -5 -2001 and the Department contends that the same was not further extended and hence, the goods are deemed to be improperly removed and hence, the benefit of the Notification cannot be extended and they are required to pay the duty and penalty and interest.

(2.) THE learned Counsel submits that the goods continued to be in the bonded premises and they are not liable to pay the duty, penalty and interest. He relies on this Benchs ruling rendered in the case of Stelfast India P. Ltd. v. CC - 2006 (195) E.L.T. 86. He further submits that they are eligible for depreciation for having used the goods all along. In this regard, he refers to the Tribunal ruling rendered in the case of I -Flex Solutions Ltd. v. CC, Bangalore as reported in 2005 (184) E.L.T. 259 wherein the matter was remanded to workout the depreciation and in terms of the Circular No. 29/03, dated 3 -4 -2003. Further reliance is placed on the Circular No. 29/03, dated 3 -4 -2003 wherein the entire procedure has been laid down with regard to the manner by which the demands have to be confirmed in respect of capital goods in bonded premises. Further, reliance is placed on Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Kiran Spinning Mills v. CC as reported in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 753 (S.C.) with regard to the law laid down on recovery of duty in warehoused goods. Further reliance is placed on Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Pratibha Processors v. UOI - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.). The learned Counsel submits that the goods continue to be used for the purpose of manufacture of exported goods and they are deemed to be warehoused goods. Further reliance is placed on Pradeep Ullal v. CC - 2001 (133) E.L.T. 428. In terms of these orders, he submits that the appellant have still an opportunity to file an application to complete the formality of seeking extension of the warehousing period.

(3.) THE learned JCDR submits that the appellant ought to have filed an application for seeking extension of the warehousing period. As they have defaulted, the Commissioner was justified in confirming the demands.