9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bai and to the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore in respect of the imports made through, Air Cargo Complex, Bangalore. As the allegations in both the notices could be sustained only by inter-linking the imports made by the main applicant through Mumbai and Bangalore, even the DRI who investigated this case had sought to appoint one common adjudicating authority. Accordingly, in their letter S/IV/72/2000, dated 24-10-2001 they had stated that they have no objection if either of the Bench of the Settlement Commission at Mumbai or Chennai takes up the applications filed with the Mumbai Bench and Chennai Bench together for disposal. The Chairman, Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission, Principal Bench, New Delhi has also assigned the settlement applications filed with the Mumbai Bench to this Bench for disposal vide his Order No. 2/2002, dated 10-5-2002 [F.No. 23/TECH/2001-SC(PV)]. All these applications were, accordingly, admitted vide Admission Order No. 15/2002, dated 27-9-2002 of this Bench, since on the date of admission, proceedings relating to levy, assessment, and collection of duty was pending, and as per Sec. 127B(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, an application can be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment on the correctness in the method adopted). The notices propose to confiscate the goods u/s 111(m) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 (Act for short), and to impose penalty u/s 112(a)(ii) of the Act and personal penalty on the co-applicants under the above said section of the Act. The notices further demand interest u/s 28AB of the Act and propose to adjust the amount already paid during investigation. 4. In the settlement applications, the main applicant has not challenged/contested any of the allegations in the notices, nor even disputed or questioned any of the documentary or oral evidences collected during investigation. They have only referred to their letter dated 9-3-2001 addressed to DD, DRI, Bangalore which, according to them, contains the explanations as to why they had to resort to imports in the above said fashion. (However, a perusal of this letter indicates that it only contains the details of their manufacturing activity and that they came to understand from the DRI that for the imports made they had to pay duty as for full equipment and that, accordingly, they were making arrangement to pay the duty). Since the evidence and allegations in the notices are not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner of Customs, New Delhi, 2001 (132) E.L.T. 161 (T) = 2001 (44) RLT 137 (T) and argued that benefit of notification granting exemption to parts is available when an equipment in CKD/SKD condition is imported. Relying on a judgment of the Apex Court in BPL India v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin 2002 (143) E.L.T. 2003 (S.C.) = 2002 (50) RLT 249 (SC) the ld. Advocate stated that in the above judgment, the Apex Court have held that when manufacture of a product takes place, it is a mixed question of law and fact and the nature and extent of processes may vary from case to case and further that when a change takes place and a new and distinct commercial article comes into existence, such change constitute a process of manufacture . He finally referred to 3 more orders of the CEGAT and submitted that the CEGAT have held therein that when components are presented in unassembled condition, imports having been made at different points of time, in different vessels or air-crafts and the said components are not having essential character of complete or finished article at the time of import, the said components are to be classified accordingly and benefit of notification to be g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trongly opposed the grant of any immunity to the main applicant and the co-applicants as, according to the Revenue, grant of immunities even in a case of this nature involving deliberate, conscious and calculated design to evade the duty and that too by a reputed company would send wrong signals and encourage duty evasions. There will not be any deterrence. During the final hearing, Shri Srinivasa Rao, summarised the part played by the co-applicants and also submitted a written brief highlighting the role played by each one of them in planning and executing the modus, resulting in loss of Revenue to the Government. He, therefore, submitted against grant of any immunities. 9. The strong objections raised by the Revenue to grant of immunities have to be examined in the backdrop of the objectives and scheme of Settlement Commission. 10. The Government announced the setting up of the Customs Central Excise Settlement Commission on the lines of a similar Commission already working under the Income-tax Act, 1961 vide clause 105 of the Finance Bill, 1998 by which Chapter XIVA was incorporated in the Act. The various provisions in the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is said that the applicant as well as its executives have fully cooperated with the investigating agency and submitted all the documents including relevant documents from China connected with the impugned goods. On this claim, the Revenue has not offered any comments in the parawise comments filed by them. It, therefore, implies that the applicant had extended full cooperation even to the investigating agency facilitating the investigation. 14. Apart from the above, at the time of final hearing, by referring to certain judgments of the Apex Court and orders of CEGAT, the Advocate has argued that, ab initio, the goods imported had to be assessed as parts and not as complete machines. But for the applicant having approached this Commission, the litigation could have protracted on this basic question of clubbing goods presented for assessment at two different ports for purpose of assessment. The Revenue also would have had to spend a lot of time, energy and resources in defending their stand before various judicial fora. Further more, if the applicants succeed on this issue then there will be no accrual of additional revenue demanded in this case. 15. Considering the above fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
