Just a moment...

βœ•
Top
Help
πŸš€ New: Section-Wise Filter βœ•

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β€” now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: β€œIn Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws β†’

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedbackβœ•

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2003 (12) TMI 455

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a import licence for their import. The appellants claim was that the machine was manufactured in 1991. The Commissioner's finding was that the machine had been manufactured in 1981. Consequent to the finding, the Commissioner confiscated the machine and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 5.5 lakhs. A penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was also imposed. The present appeal challenges the confiscation of the machine. 2. The finding in the impugned order that the machine was manufactured in 1981 is based on two pieces of evidence. One was a plate affixed on the automatic exchange speed equipment machine. This is a part of the machine and the year of manufacture showed on it is 1981. The second piece of evidence was the electric circuit shown on the elec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....S 3 machine No. 76.46 warp knitting machine in the year 1991. The said machine was sold by us to the company Hoorens, Belgium." During the hearing of the case, the learned Counsel for the appellants emphasized that the certificate from the original manufacturer should be treated as conclusive. He pointed out that the machine itself bore the Sl. No. as 76046 and that was the same Sl. Number mentioned in the proforma invoice and the invoice covering the sale of the goods. With regard to the materials relied on in the impugned order, the learned Counsel submitted that the year of manufacture indicated on parts of machines should not be treated as determinative of the year of manufacture of machine itself. He has pointed out that over the year....