2005 (6) TMI 489 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of transaction value of second-hand machinery.
2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine and penalty.
3. Validity of Chartered Engineers Certificate.
4. Non-production of valid license and mis-declaration of the year of manufacture.
5. Rejection of invoice value and acceptance of local Chartered Engineer's certificate.
6. Applicability of Supreme Court and Tribunal judgments on valuation of second-hand machinery.

Analysis:

1. The appellant contested the rejection of the transaction value of second-hand six colour king web offset printing machines declared through BE 146100, dated 4-8-2004. The department rejected the transaction value and imposed a redemption fine and penalty. The appellant argued that without contemporaneous import data, the rejection was unjustified. They also presented a Chartered Engineers Certificate supporting the machinery's age to be less than 10 years. The department appointed a Chartered Engineer who valued the goods higher and stated the age as over 10 years. The Tribunal noted that the rejection of value was not in line with the Apex Court's ruling that transaction value for second-hand machinery cannot be dismissed. The local Chartered Engineer's certificate was used to enhance the value, while the appellant's foreign Chartered Engineer's certificate supported a lower age and market value. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant based on the Supreme Court and Tribunal judgments, setting aside the impugned order.

2. The goods were confiscated, and the appellant was given the option to redeem them by paying a fine and penalty. The appellant argued against the confiscation, stating that the rejection of the transaction value was unjustified. The Tribunal found that the rejection was not in line with legal precedents and set aside the order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief if any.

3. The validity of the Chartered Engineers Certificate was a crucial point of contention. The appellant's foreign Chartered Engineer's certificate supported a lower age and market value for the machinery, while the department relied on a local Chartered Engineer's certificate to enhance the value. The Tribunal found the foreign certificate more credible and ruled in favor of the appellant based on the evidence presented.

4. The issue of non-production of a valid license and mis-declaration of the year of manufacture was raised by the authorities. The appellants were charged under specific policy provisions for these violations. However, the Tribunal focused on the valuation aspect and the rejection of transaction value, ultimately setting aside the impugned order based on legal precedents.

5. The rejection of the invoice value and acceptance of the local Chartered Engineer's certificate by the department were challenged by the appellant. The Tribunal found that the rejection was not in line with the Supreme Court and Tribunal judgments on the valuation of second-hand machinery, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned order.

6. The appellant relied on various judgments, including those of the Supreme Court and the Tribunal, to support their argument that the transaction value of second-hand machinery cannot be rejected. The Tribunal referenced these judgments in their analysis and ultimately ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order.