9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... housed at Central Warehousing Corporation, Virugambakkam. 3. Subsequently, they had filed an ex-bond Bill of Entry for assessment at concessional rate of duty @ 25% under Notification No. 68/89-Cus., dated 1-3-89 and produced certificate dated 12-4-94 issued by the Department of Chemicals Petrochemicals, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, Government of India, New Delhi and the Chartered Engineer s certificate. The goods were provisionally assessed to duty extending the benefit of the said notification. However, the records were scrutinized by DRI and it was found that there was fraudulent and intentional mis-declaration as to the age of the plant, manufacturers name, description, value etc., of the dismantled solvent recovery equipment brought from U.K. and that the importer had smuggled into India huge quantity of Pelletised Activated Carbon by stuffing and concealing the same into the absorber vessels of the second hand dismantled plant. It was believed that there was manipulation of labels, name plates and Chartered Engineer s Certificate by the importer in collusion with others abroad for facilitating customs clearance. After detailed investigation and recording of sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause notice had alleged that the impugned goods did not find a place in the table attached to the Notification No. 68/89 as amended and that the party had not come forward to indicate specifically as to under what item of the table to the notification, the impugned goods would be covered. He has noted that in the absence of such correlation the concessional rate of duty has to be denied. However, he has given a finding that the item in question is a pollution control system and also solvent recovery plant and such machinery has obviously dual function, namely, to control the environmental pollution and to act as a solvent recovery plant and this finding has been recorded in Para 14 of his order. The Commissioner in Paras 19 and 20 has also clearly recorded this finding that there is no other evidence to prove that the plant is more than 20 years old or so and that there is no connecting documentary evidence to the effect that the plant was built by M/s. Rotunda Ltd. and supplied to M/s. 3 M factory. He has concluded that on the basis of the evidence on record, the second hand plant is having a residual life of 5 years and it can be imported by actual users. He has also noted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arbon is required to be added to the assessable value ? (iii) Whether the fee paid to Shri Kesavan Chakravarthy to the extent of Rs. 2 lakhs is required to be added in the assessable value ? (iii) Whether the order of confiscation and imposition of fine and penalty is required to be confirmed ? 9. Ld. Counsel took pains to refer to the certificate issued by the Ministry of Chemicals Fertilizers, who are the authority, who are required to issue the certificate for importing the concerned Pollution Control Equipment under the notification. He also referred to the annexures to the certificate which detailed the items and the declaration filed with the department. The Commissioner has entered into a clear finding that the item is pollution control equipment and also acts as solvent recovery plant. In the light of the findings recorded, we have to accept the plea that the item is a Pollution Control System/Equipment. Revenue has not contested the findings arrived at by the Commissioner in favour of the appellants with regard to the item imported and the claim of benefit of notification. The only grounds on which the claim has been rejected is that the appellant-importers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts yet the Commissioner has also entered into a clear finding that the activated carbon although is a part of the equipment, but the allegation is that there was no supply of activated carbon, and it was only supplied on the appellants instructions and loaded the same in the plant. Ld. Counsel took the plea that the supplier was prejudiced against them and he made a wrong submission in the letter addressed to DRI but the appellants have not produced any correspondence between them and the supplier with regard to contents of the letter which is relied upon by the Commissioner to arrive at the finding that the appellants had instructed the supplier to supply 15 MTs subsequently and the same was later imported. There is an enormous evidence on record to show that the appellants had imported subsequently and the supplier has also vouched safe this fact. There is also statement from the witnesses recorded who have clearly admitted this position. In that view of the matter, the Commissioner s finding arrived at on the basis of evidence that the value of 15 MTs of activated carbon is required to be added to the assessable value is required to be confirmed and we do so. 13. As regards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
