9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Classification of imported motors as internally geared motors. 2. Denial of benefit under Notification No. 59/87-Cus. 3. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty. Classification of Imported Motors: The case involved the classification of imported motors as internally geared motors under OGL Appendix 6, List 8, S. No. 659 of April-March 1990-93 Policy. The Revenue contended that the imported motors were not internally geared as claimed by the appellants but squirrel cage type, based on expert opinion. The adjudicating authority held that the motors were not internally geared due to the separate housing of the motor unit and gear unit. The appellants argued with evidence, including invoices, catalog descriptions, and supplier certificates, supporting their claim that the motors were indeed geared motors. The Tribunal observed substantial evidence favoring the appellants' position and disagreed with the finding based on anonymous expert opinion, concluding that the motors were internally geared. Consequently, the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 59/87-Cus. Denial of Benefit under Notification No. 59/87-Cus: Due to the finding that the imported motors were not internally geared, the benefit under Notification 59/87-Cus was denied. However, the Tribunal, upon determining the motors as internally geared, reversed this denial and granted the benefit to the appellants. The Tribunal also highlighted that similar motors had been imported earlier, benefiting from OGL entry, supporting the appellants' entitlement to the same benefit under the relevant policies. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal emphasized that confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties were unwarranted in this case. Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Penalty: The adjudicating authority had confiscated the imported motors and imposed a fine on the appellants. The appellants argued that past importations of similar motors had been allowed under OGL, indicating inconsistency in treatment. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, setting aside the confiscation and penalty, and granting consequential relief. The decision was based on the finding that the appellants were entitled to OGL entry benefits and that confiscation and penalties were unjustified, aligning with legal precedent. In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of the appellants, determining that the imported motors were internally geared, granting them the benefit under Notification No. 59/87-Cus, and overturning the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties. The decision emphasized the importance of substantial evidence over anonymous expert opinions and upheld the appellants' entitlement to consistent treatment based on past import practices and legal principles.
|
