9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 971X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated only in very general terms in para 21 of the impugned order also.Based on such unauthenticated informationit is argued that all machines with serial numbers less than that should have been manufactured earlier. It is in this aspect that some sort of conjecture has been made by Revenue in support of the case. It is possible that the manufacturer was giving different series of numbers for different type of machines. The exact year of taking over of the company of CERDANS by VAMATAX also is not clear. So no value can be added by argument based on takeover of the manufacturing company by another company. In this case the benefit of doubt should go to the appellant. Therefore I hold that Revenue has failed to prove any mis-declaration an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 33 etc. and model No.C.401-E, C.301-E etc. The details of the serial number and model numbers etc. in the name plates affixed on the machine were as follows :- S. No. Machine No. Model No. Description found on the Nameplates of all machines 01 3843 C401-E LEY 17 JULIO 1965 Sorbeesteobjectopesan los pastos de reservo de dominio y prohibecian de disponer La destruction o atteraction illegal de estacontrasenadaralugar a lasresponsabilidadesqueestablece la lay Vendodor :-Cerdans. s.a Madrazo:-88-Barcelona 02 3733 C301-E 03 3865 C401-E 04 3862 C401-E 05 386 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r section 111 (d) and 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalty should not be imposed on the appellant under section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. On adjudication, the goods were confiscated under section 111 (d) and 111 (m) of the Customs Act,1962 and the appellants were given option to pay a fine of Rs.10 lakhs in lieu of confiscation under section 125 ibid. Further a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was imposed on M/s.Amarvathy Textiles, Karur under section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, the appellants have filed this appeal. 5. The appellant submits that there is no evidence to conclude that year of make for the machines involved in present case were 1989 or earlier. The allegation has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g a valid license for the import of machinery in question. The Commissioner did not dispute the fact of obtaining the license for importing machineries of 1989 make. The Chartered Engineer has no authority to give opinion with regard to events taking place at foreign country and the reliance placed on the Chartered Engineer's certificate in this matter is not warranted. Further it was argued that the Chartered Engineers opinion that the company CERDANS was taken over by VAMATEX in 1990s does not bring out any clear contradiction because 1990s meaning the year 1990 to 1999. The exact year of takeover was not known to the Chartered Engineer or from any other source. So it is argued that the case is made out without any reliable evidence. Fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eries in questions were not got examined by a Chartered Engineer either at the time of import or after seizing the goods based on doubt regarding age of the machines. The whole argument of Revenue is based on information which they unearthed in their enquiry to the effect thatserial numbers for machines manufactured by CERDANS had crossed 4000 in 1989 itself.However the source of this information is not disclosed in para 6 of the impugned order. It is stated only in very general terms in para 21 of the impugned order also.Based on such unauthenticated informationit is argued that all machines with serial numbers less than that should have been manufactured earlier. It is in this aspect that some sort of conjecture has been made by Revenue i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
