TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (1) TMI 203
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bank. While the goods were under examination, the importers voluntarily revised the duty assessed from Rs. 2,96,617.70 to Rs. 3,11,822.54. One the grounds for doing this was that some of the spare parts were assessable on merits under different tariff headings. The invoice presented to the Customs was a consolidated one which did not show the value of individual parts. The packing list later supplied also did not evaluate individual parts. Investigations conducted at the premises of the importers as also of the CHA resulted in the recovery of an original invoice containing 13 pages. A similar document was found from CHA's premises. The bank confirmed that this was the invoice available with them. On these documents, details of each part an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellants during the relevant period were Rs. 13 crores and they could easily get a licence on these grounds. He urged that the orders of confiscation under Section 111(d) could not sustain. Arguing on the liability to confiscation under Section 111(m), the ld. Advocate submitted that when the value was correctly declared, this Section could not apply. The goods were correctly described as spares. The charge of misdeclaration, therefore, cannot be levelled. Since the total quantity of the goods was, as was declared, the orders of confiscation under Section 111(l) also could not sustain. In support of his submissions, he cited the Tribunal's order reproduced in 1994 (74) E.L.T. 964. He further, stated that by seeking to classify all the spa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of importing spares had not been earlier availed of by the importers at the time of import of the main machinery. In spite of our query and his assurance, Shri Sridharan was not able to produce before us documents witnessing clearance of the main machinery. This undermines his entire logic. Even otherwise the relevant provision permitted import only of those spares, which were not included in Appendix 2(b), 3(a), 8 and 10. The Collector in his order has referred to gear box imported as spares which squarely fell under Appendix 10. Drawing a distinction between spares and components, the Collector has held that goods enumerated in Appendix 6 Para 1 List 8 which included several of these spares imported in the present goods would not be cov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... show cause notice does not bring out very clearly the basis of the allegation. The Additional Collector's order also does not state how confiscation had been adjudged under Section 111(m) and 111(l). Although the show cause notice refers to Section 111(o), the order is silent in this aspect. The orders of confiscation under Section 111(l) and (o) do not sustain whereas only part of the goods could be covered as falling under Section 111(m). For lack of substantiation, these orders do not survive. 8. On the aspect of penalty, the claim of Shri Sridharan was two-fold, firstly, that the orders of confiscation were not legal and secondly, that his clients were respectable hotliers. We have upheld the liability of the goods to confiscat....