Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2009 (2) TMI 135

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tedly old, some of the parts were replaced and valve and power cable may have been manufactured in 1988. - Year of manufacture found on a small component of whole machinery can not lead to the conclusion that the entire machinery was manufactured in that particular year. - Confiscation of the machinery and penalties is set aside.
Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) and Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T) Shri P.M. Dave, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Sameer Chitkara, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)].- Vide this impugned order Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad has confiscated one second hand Teijin Seiki draw twister machine imported by the appellant from Korea with an option to the appellant to redeem the sa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... date of manufacture was engraved on the machine. Further, the Solenoid Operated Valve bore date of manufacture as 11.1988 and on Power Cable, the year 1988 was written. As such, it was believed that the machine in question was more than 10 year old and required a specific import license. Investigations were also conducted at the supplier's end by writing various letters 4. On the above basis, proceedings were initiated against the appellant alleging that the machine was more than 10 years old and accordingly proposing confiscation of the same. The value of the machine was also proposed to be enhanced with consequence of confirmation of duty demand. Notice also proposed imposition of penalty. This said show cause notice culminated into orde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hartered Engineer certificate issued by the South Korean seller. No enquiry in this regard was conducted by the Customs with the foreign supplier and no query was ever raised. As such, it stand pleaded before us that merely because the Chartered Engineer certificate issued on 13-11-2000 also mentions letter of credit dated i.e. 21-11-2000, it cannot be presumed that the same is fake or non-genuine. We agree with the above contention of the appellant. As explained by them, even though the certificate was issued on 13-11-2000, the subsequent mentions of letter of credit date in the said certificate is not sufficient to doubt the correctness of the same. The said certificate in clear terms mentions that the performance of the machine was chec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sent by the foreign supplier and it stand repeatedly clarified by them that the machine was of 1992. However, in a subsequent communication, the foreign supplier had written to the department that they have already clarified the quarries raised by the department in response to various letters addressed to them regarding issue of their DT machine manufactured more than a decade ago (emphasize supplied). From this letter, the Revenue concluded that the subject DT machine is manufactured a decade ago i.e. before 1991 and the year of manufacturer has declared as 1992 in all the import documents as well as declared in subsequent communications is not correct. It stand further concluded that the senior officials of the Japanese Company has been p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... i [2007 (212) E.L.T. 465 (Tri.-Mum.)] has observed that year of manufacture found on a small component of whole machinery does not lead to the conclusion that the entire machinery was manufactured in that particular year. By applying the ratio of the above d and by appreciating the overwhelming evidence on record, we do not find any merits in the above observations of the adjudicating authority. 10. In view of the foregoing, we find no reasons to upheld the impugned order as regards the date of manufacture of the same and hold that admittedly the machine in question was less than 10 years old and does not call for confiscation or imposition of penalty on the appellant. As the appellant has not challenged the assessable value, we need to re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates