9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nment of India, the certificate issued by the Chartered 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 – penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity. In terms of the approval, the unit was required to manufacture and export energy saving florescent tubes. The value of the imported capital goods was of the order of Rs. 3.92 crores. Investigation revealed that after importing this machinery to Mysore unauthorisedly, it was removed to another premises at Bangalore. Therefore, proceedings were initiated against Sri. Vinay Chandra, Managing Dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d already approved the import of the machinery. They had approved only after confirming themselves that these machines were capable of producing energy saving lamps. The description in the bills of entry was identical to the description given in the approval by Government of India. The Chartered Engineer s certificate showed that the machines were actually manufactured in 1985. Further, the materi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent for his role or misdeclaration of age of machinery so as to get import benefit in the Bills of entry? (ii) Whether CESTAT was right in holding that investigation has not been properly carried out and the respondent has not gained by the misdeclaration in the Bills of entry? 5. The material on record disclosed that the assessee was a hundred per cent export oriented unit. They import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
