9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (3) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 500 and duty at 20 per cent ad valorem on the tariff value in force at the time of clearance of the goods. On behalf of the person who assembled the cine-projector, the appellant agreed to pay duty and fine. In appeal, the appellant took the plea that the projector was not fitted with arc lamp, reflector mirror and lens and so the assessment should have been on the parts of the projector under Notification No. 99/72, dated 17-3-1972 and not on the complete projector. The Appellate Collector rejected the appeal holding that was a case where the appellant, through the assembler, had manufactured a cinematograph projector except for the three aforesaid parts and that, therefore, there was no justification for assessing to duty only the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not arise in this case. 3. The revision (appeal) was fixed for hearing on 14-3-1983. A letter dated 6-3-1983 was received in the Registry on 8-3-1983 from Shri P.N. Menon, Consultant on behalf of the appellant stating that the appellant was not available at the given address and that the appeal might be decided on merits on the basis of the record without a hearing. 4. In the revision application (hereinafter referred to as appeal), it has been urged that in the absence of arc lamp, reflector mirror and projecting lens, the goods seized could not by any stretch of imagination be termed as projector either completely assembled or otherwise. 5. On this basis, the appellants have urged that the seized goods should be deemed to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods are missing should not, in our view, detract from the position that the seized assembly of projector parts is a cinematograph projector for the purpose of the said tariff item. In this view of the matter we do not see any merit in the appellant s contention in this behalf. However, considering that the value of the seized goods, according to the order of adjudication, was ₹ 8,300 and that the duty leviable has been worked out on the basis of a tariff value of ₹ 32,000 prevailing at the time of clearance of the goods, we are of the view that the fine in lieu of confiscation imposed by the adjudicating authority was somewhat on the high side. Accordingly, we reduce the fine from ₹ 4,000 to ₹ 2,000 only. The cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
