Customs Appeal No. 00537 of 2009 and Final Order No. 21236/2015. Case: Microsoft India (R & D) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | Customs Appeal No. 00537 of 2009 and Final Order No. 21236/2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shankar Bala, CA and For Respondents: A.K. Nigam, AR |
| Judges | G. Raghuram, J. (President) and B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T) |
| Issue | Customs |
| Citation | 2015 (325) ELT 386 (Tri - Bang) |
| Judgement Date | May 25, 2015 |
| Court | CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Judgment:
G. Raghuram, J. (President), (South Zonal Bench Circuit Bench At Hyderabad)
-
The appellant is the assessee and is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.5.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Hyderabad IV. The impugned order confirmed customs duty demand at the appropriate rate on capital goods of the appellant shared with another company, M/s. Microsoft Global Services Centre (India) Private Limited (MGSCI). The impugned order held that the rate and valuation of the assets shall be as on the commencement of sharing of capital goods and confirmed the liability in accordance with provisions of Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962, payable on the date of commencement of sharing.
-
In 2006, the appellant applied to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad IV for sharing of common assets etc. with M/S MGSCI, which is a group company, for sharing of its assets in the premises. Vide order dated 24.4.2006, the Assistant Commissioner conveyed the permission granted by the Commissioner with regard to sharing of specified equipment under Circular No. 53/2001-Cus. Dated 12.10.2001.
-
In course of time, the business of the appellant and of MGSCI expanded. The appellant occupied another premises also. As there was vacant space available in the premises occupied and owned by the appellant along with certain common facilities on 13.6.2008 the appellant again applied for sharing of specified assets with MGSCI, a group company. On 5.6.2008, the appellant and M/s. MGSCI entered into a lease agreement whereby the appellant leased a specified extent of space in 2nd and 3rd floor of its premises to M/s. MGSCI together with assets on a monthly rent.
-
Proceedings were initiated on the basis that sharing of the assets by the appellant with M/s. MGSCI was in violation of the conditions specified in Notification No. 52/2003-Cus dated 31.3.2003, in particular, condition No. 12 and therefore the appellant is liable to remit customs duty, since it was disentitled to the benefits of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus. The proceedings...
To continue reading
Request your trial