9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dgment per : N. Kumar J.]. - This appeal is by the revenue being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal [2008 (230) E.L.T. 295 (Tribunal)], which has set aside the penalty imposed on the assessee on the ground of misdeclaration. 2. The assessee M/s. Reining Lighting (I) Ltd., a hundred per cent export oriented unit having their manufacturing unit situated at Mysore, imported certain machin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owed that the machinery imported was manufactured in 1990 whereas, they were scrap machinery which were manufactured in 1964-65. Therefore, the imported machinery was not capable of manufacturing energy saving florescent tubes. Aggrieved by the said imposition of penalty, he preferred an appeal. The appeal came to be dismissed. He preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s against this undisputed material and the statement of the co-noticee and the officials of the department, the said material was brushed aside and a finding against the assessee was recorded imposing penalty. Hence, the Tribunal set aside the said finding. It is against this order, the revenue was preferred by this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties. 4. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtered Engineer and what is mentioned in the bill of entry are all identical. At the time the machinery was removed from Mysore to Bangalore, the said Mr. Vinaya Chandra was not in office. Under these circumstances, holding him liable for misdescription on the statement of the co-noticee and the officials of the department, was not proper. The finding recorded by the Appellate Authority is contrar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
