TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 971
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ove machines were supplied by M/s MAQUISATOR, Barcelona, Spain for a total value of Rs. 57,56,655/- for the 15 looms. The goods were cleared on payment of duty and the machineries were installed in the factory premises of the appellant. Later, the Revenue department received information to the effect that the year of make of the machineries was much earlier and if the correct year of make was considered, the goods were restricted for import during the relevant time and the appellant had deliberately mis-declared the year of make of the machineries to avoid restrictions under import policy for importing old machines. 2. Revenue conducted detailed examination of the machine in the presence of Shri S. Chandrasekararan, General Manager of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....manufactured prior to 1989 only. Further, M/s.Cerdans S.S.Narcelona, Spain had been taken over by M/s.Vamatex of Italy in 1990s and therefore goods could not have been manufactured in the name "Cerdans Propeller" in the year 1994 as declared by the importer. 4. Revenue confronted Shri S.Chandrasekaran with the above evidences, but he had no satisfactory explanation to give at the time of giving his statement on 26-03-04. Since during the relevant period, second hand capital goods which were more than 10 years old were restricted for import as per para 2.17of EXIM Policy read with para 2.33 of Handbook of Procedures, the department detained the goods and issued show cause notice as to why goods should not be confiscated under section 111 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....categorically stated that machineries involved in the present case were manufactured in the year in1994. It is further argued that there was no revenue loss involved in the import because Revenue has not made out any case regarding undervaluation. In the circumstances, it is submitted that penalty imposed is totally unwarranted. Appellant also points out that at the time of import of the machinery in question appellant had applied for license and subsequently, that is on 22-09-2003, appellants got license to import machineries manufactured in the year 1989. However, the same was not utilized for the reason that the supplier had declared in the invoice the year of make as 1994. Therefore, technically speaking appellant was having a valid lic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry imported by another importer showing the year of make as 1990 and the serial numbers of 4000 for the same model is valid evidence though it is gathered from another importer. Further it is very relevant that when these evidences were presented to the General Manager, Shri S. Chandrasekar, he had no cogent explanation to give and he was only giving evasive replies indicating that this was a case of mis-declaration of year of make. Therefore, he submits that the Revenue has adduced enough circumstantial evidences and if all of them are put together and assessed the obvious conclusion is that the case made out by Revenue is correct. 7. I have considered submissions on both sides and evaluated the evidence available. The machineries in qu....