9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vocate, for the Appellant. Ms. Sudha Koka, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (J)]. - This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Original No. 15/99/Commr Adjn, dated 31-12-1999, passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore. 2. The facts of the case are that M/s Reinig Lighting (India) Ltd., a 100% E.O.U., having their manufacturing unit at Mysore, imported certain machinery under two Bills of Entry 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 capita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heard both the sides in the matter. On gong through the records, we find that the Adjudication order comes to nearly 41 pages. The finding as regards the appellant, Mr. Vinay Chandra is given by the Adjudicating authority in Paragraph 84 of the impugned order. The said Paragraph is reproduced herein below :- "84. Shri Vinay Chandra, one of the Directors of the company is also charged with mis-declaration in the Bill of Entry which showed that the machinery 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 Mahaz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. The Adjudicating authority has already imposed heavy penalty on Mr. Choubey, Mr. Reinig and Mr. Azam Ali to an extend of Rs. 1 crore, Rs. 75 lakhs and Rs. 50 lakhs respectively. He has stated that has no role of illegal removal of machinery. He has been imposed with a heavy penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs only on the charge of mis-declaration in the Bills of Entry. The machines were manufactured in 1990 and the machinery were not capable of manufacturing of 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 manu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India. Therefore the appellant had signed the same and it is not a mis-declaration. Moreover the declaration that the machines were actually manufactured in 1985 was given in the Chartered Engineer's certificate and the certificate was obtained by Mr. Reinig and the appellant had no role in this. He further added that the appellant had ascertained from the supplier that the machines were completely and fully refurbished in 1985 and was assured that they 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 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
