9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y dated 30-01-96 and 08-02-96. The machinery were imported free of duty under the 100% E.O.U. Scheme after taking necessary permission and observing the formality. 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 carried out by the Revenue officers reveals that the goods had been un-authorisedly removed from the 100% E.O.U. premises in Mysore to another premises in Bangalore. All the details of the case are need not to be taken. As far as the present appellant is concerned in the impugned order, the Commissioner has imposed a penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs on him under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... achinery imported by M/s Reinig Lighting India Ltd were manufactured in 1990 whereas they were scrap machinery which were manufactured in 1964-65. It is apparent that his mis-declaration was made to circumvent the limitation imposed on import of second-hand machinery. It is clear from the Mahazar dated 23-1-98 that the machines appear to have been manufactured in 1963-64. Shir N.P. Choubey in his statement dated 12-4-98 has stated that the machinery was not capable of manufacturing energy saving florescent tubes or any other product reflected in the project report. He has further stated that the old machineries were capable of manufacturing miniature bulbs although the permission was obtained for manufacture of energy saving florescent tube ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f energy saving lamps. He has pointed out that the Adjudicating Authority has come to the conclusion solely on the basis of the statement made by Mr. Choubey in the reply to the show cause notice. It was urged that Mr. Choubey is a non-technical person and does not know anything about the manufacturing of any product, let alone lamps manufacturing. Moreover it was submitted that the appellant did his Engineering in Boston University in 1992. Though he was a US Citizen, he wanted to return to India to become an Entrepreneur and was looking for opportunities. He met Mr. Reinig in Munich exhibition in 1994 and became interested in setting up a joint venture in India for Energy Saving Lamps. Then he undertook some training in Germany in Lamps m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y can be used for another 10 years from the date of shipment. 5. On a very careful consideration of the matter, we find that the appellant himself had been implicated by Mr. Rein and there is no evidence that he was responsible for the removal of the machinery and he had no role. But in any case, penalty has been imposed on him only in the illegality of the import of the machinery, namely the mis-declaration of the description. When we peruse the Commissioner's finding, it is seen that it is based on the statement of Mr. Choubey who himself is a co-noticee and he has been imposed with the penalty of Rs.1 corore. There is no other technical opinion with regard to the fact that the machinery imported were not capable of manufacturing energy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
