9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of fine of Rs. 15 lakhs. He has also ordered for confiscation of machineries valued at Rs. 16,17,146/- and directed the same to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 1.5 lakhs. He has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellant company. 2. The short fact leading to the initiation of proceedings against the appellant are that the appellant had filed Bill of Entry for clearance of second hand machines in terms of 4 Bill of Entry giving the total value in terms of the said machineries. As per first Bill of Entry dated 16-7-97 of Rs. 8,22,020/-, the second Bill of Entry dated 17-7-96 of Rs. 3,79,170/- and third Bill of Entry dated 17-7-96 of Rs. 89,049/- and fourth Bill of Entry dated 22-7-96 of Rs. 1,05,708/-. Further facts fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as junk. Hence, his valuation is not on well defined principles but a guesstimate. (c) Valuation done by Shri Saji K. Thomas is too cursery and gives valuation on a broad basis. 4. In respect of machines not covered by any licence, in respect of one set of machine, he has proceeded to assess on the basis of Custom House practice to arrive at a value of Rs. 9,63,299/-. While in respect of machinery pertaining to Sl. No. (Drkel Milling Machine) again he has adopted a valuation as per SGS at Rs. 2,14,820/- each and has not proceeded to adopt the Customs House practice. He has rejected the appellant s plea that the machineries are junk machinery and requires a lot of refurbishing and accessories. He has held that the allegation of und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der and there was no consistency in the manufacturer s price. Therefore, the best method was to accept the SGS valuation. The Commissioner having noted in para 5 of his finding portion that SGS value is required to be accepted in view of being a reputed international inspecting agency. Therefore, the Commissioner cannot reject their valuation arrived in respect of 6 machines as held by him in para 4, thereby, there is a clear contradiction in his finding. The Commissioner cannot proceed to adopt straight line method to arrive to give 70% depreciation with regard to 6 machines by accepting the manufacturers value which itself is not constant and steady as noted in the facts portion of the order. There were 3 sets of valuation with regard to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jected for 6 sets of machines and other set of machines. There is a clear contradiction in his views with regard to 6 machines for which he has proceeded to value in terms of straight line procedure. The Commissioner has taken 70% of the manufacturer s cost. However, the manufacturer himself has given 3 sets of invoices and the said value is contradicted by the value given by the Chartered Engineer. The Department rejected these invoices and valuation and had directed the importer to get the valuation done through SGS Agency under the inspection of DGFT. Therefore, the ld. Commissioner cannot adopt two yardsticks for two sets of machineries as contended by the ld. Counsel. Ld. SDR has clear fairly conceded in seeking remand of the matter in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
