2005 (1) TMI 485

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. The issue to be considered in this appeal is a question of fact and not of law. The appellant imported a special purpose machine from M/s. Inova Germany. The appellant is a 100% subsidiary of M/s. Guhring GmbH Germany, The design of the machinery has been carried out by M/s. Guhring GmbH Germany. The design and the technical specifications were given .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e dated 11-5-2000. Consequently the Adjudicating Authority added the design and testing charges to the assessable value invoking Rule 9(1)(b)(iv) of the Valuation Rules, 1988. He held that the goods are confiscable under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act as the appellants suppressed the facts. Redemption fine of Rs. 1,40,000/- was imposed. A penalty of Rs 10,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Custo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n queries were made by the Revenue regarding the design and testing charges it was revealed that the appellants did not pay any design/testing charges to their principals. However, the foreign suppliers in their letter dated 29-9-2000 have indicated the cost details in the following manner. Lokanath Complex 1380/8/2, Hosur Road Singasandra Bangalore - 580088 India Your ref. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 0 DM *) paid to GUHRING OHG, GERMANY Delivery: CIF Basis to ICD Bangalore Country of origin: F.R. of Germany We hereby certify that the goods are of German origin. INOVA Prazisonsworkzeug-GmhH Koonad Lebberz Sd/- Wit bitten um Zahlung auf folgendcs Konto: Deutsche Bank Albsladt BLZ 653 700 75 Konto Nr. 199 828 INOVA Prazisionswerkzeug-GmbH Jakobst .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e also produced documentary evidence. Therefore, the burden falls squarely on Revenue to produce enough evidence to reject the same. In this case, Revenue has not discharged its onus of proving that the appellant has furnished wrong information. The Adjudicating authority has ignored the evidence produced by the Appellant and based his conclusions on assumptions and presumptions, not backed by any .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X