9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. The adjudicating authority in the impugned order has held that the two cranes are not at all capital goods and are not entitled for the benefit of the Notification as they are not used for production or manufacture of goods. He has also held that as the two cranes were used only in their stockyard at Visakhapatnam and not in their factory. They had violated the post importation conditions and are liable to pay the full duty. The goods are also liable for confiscation under section 111(o) of the Customs Act. The appellants strongly challenged the findings of the adjudicating authority. Since the appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking, the clearance of the Committee on Disputes was obtained. In the COD Meeting held on 23rd March 2000, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sp; Virlon Textile Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai [2003 (158) E.L.T. 469 (T)] (3) Densons Pultretaknik v. CCE [2003 (155) E.L.T. 211 (SC)] (4) Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. CC, Chennai [2003 (162) E.L.T. 680 (T)] In the Thiagarajar Mills Ltd., case, the machine imported under EPCG scheme was installed in another premises of the sister concern because of objection by Pollution Control Board, without intimation and approval of Customs. In that case, confiscation and penalty were set aside as diversion is regularized by DGFT. In the Virlon Textiles Mills Ltd., case, it was held that claiming a benefit wrongly does not amount to suppression or mis-decalration with intention to evade duty unles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the word 'premises' and therefore the DGFT Authority approved the installation of the machine in another premises. In this case, the facts are different. The importer wilfully mis-stated and suppressed the facts before the Customs Authority. Other three cases are also distinguishable as the facts are entirely different. 5. On a careful consideration of the entire issue, we find that two points are involved in this case. These are as follows :- (1) Whether the two cranes are entitled for concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 110/95-Cus. (2) Whether the impugned goods are liable for confiscation and consequently whether the appellant is liable for fine and penalty. According t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
