2007 (4) TMI 77 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation and penalty - Revenue contended that appellant has imported old and used machine and therefore, they liable for confiscation and benefit of EPCG license disallowed and penalties were imposed - Held that revenue contention is not correct and dismissed the revenue appeal

Summary

Issues:
1. Import of old and used machines under EPCG license.
2. Confiscation, disallowance of EPCG benefit, and imposition of penalties.
3. Certification of machines as new by Chartered Engineer.
4. Discrepancy in manufacturing year and visual examination.
5. Appellants' claim of machines being new and not old or used.
6. Reliance on technical appraiser report by Revenue.

Analysis:
1. The appellant appealed against an order by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the import of three Wide Width Circular Weaving Machines under the EPCG license, which allows only new machines to be imported, prohibiting old and used machines.
2. The Revenue contended that the appellant imported old and used machines, leading to confiscation, disallowance of EPCG benefit, and imposition of penalties.
3. The appellant argued that the machines were purchased from the manufacturer and modified to wide width circular weaving machines, supported by a Chartered Engineer certificate certifying them as new machines imported into India.
4. Discrepancy arose as the Revenue claimed the machines were old and used based on visual examination and expert opinion, while the Chartered Engineer certificate indicated otherwise.
5. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's contention, noting the embossed manufacturing year of 1998 on the machines and parts, similar to a previous case where the Tribunal rejected a case based on visual examination and accepted the importer's claim based on manufacturing year markings.
6. The Tribunal concluded that there was no evidence to support the Revenue's claim of the machines being old and used, as no enquiry was made from the manufacturer. The impugned order was set aside, the appeal was allowed, and the appellants were entitled to consequential relief.

(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)