9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s SMART Modular Technologies, Malaysia and declared a value of US$ 39,000 CIF (Rs.18.06 lakhs) and filed bill of entry NO.650719 dated 19th July, 2004 along with invoice No.040709-001 dated 7th July, 2004. The consignment was detained and the matter was investigated, on the basis of which according to the Department the machines were grossly under-valued. Examination of the two machines revealed that the said machines were used and refurbished. A registered Chartered Engineer Shri H.V. Krishnaswamy valued the machines at $ 1,21,875. Detailed investigations were carried out. It was revealed that the appellants are manufacturing "Memory Modules" with the brand name "SMART" and "Hynix". The technical know how and necessary equipment and trai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of entry 650719 dated 19.07.04 was lodged in respect of earlier machines but duty was enhanced from Rs. 18,06,031/- to Rs. 56,43,848/- in terms of Section 14 of the Customs Act read with Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules., 1988 The order of confiscation was also passed and penalty was imposed as well. The appellants challenged this order by filing an appeal before the CESTAT. The CESTAT had affirmed the order and dismissed the appeal vide impugned judgment dated 15.4.2008. It is this judgment the veracity thereof is questioned by the appellant in the instant appeal. Various arguments are raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant but it is not necessary to deal with all those arguments inasmuch as after hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted to have an option of returning the machines if the business did not pick up. Further the noticee company was a loss making company and did not have the funds to pay for the machines immediately. The capital goods are not the properties of M/s Smart. However, until the noticee pays for the machines M/s Smart wanted to have the flexibility of asking the noticee to return the same if eventually the noticee was unable to pay for the same. However, the documentary proof of payment made in December, 2004 clearly proves that the machines were infact purchased by the noticee and not transferred as alleged in the show cause notice." It was submitted that notwithstanding the aforesaid specific contention raised by the Commissioner, he ignored ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
