2015 (10) TMI 325

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....014 in C/41345-41346/2014. 2.The short issue involved in these appeals relates to levy of ADD on the imports made by the appellants under two Bills of Entry No. 394117 dated 29.12.2009 and No. 397872 dated 02.01.2010. Customs seized the goods imported under live Bill of Entry and also the seized goods already cleared under Bill of Entry No. 394117 dated 29.12.2009 on the reasonable belief that the appellants have imported the full machinery of injection moulding machine in the guise of parts in two different consignments to evade ADD in terms of Notification No.47/2009 dated 12.05.2009.Subsequently, show cause notice dated 31.05.2010 was issued to the appellants. The adjudicating authority in his order No. 18779/2012 dated 08.05.2012 con....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appeals against the impugned order for setting aside fine and penalty and also on the remarks made by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his impugned order (at page-10) that it is not tax evasion but tax planning. During the pendency of the appeals, the appellant filed this present miscellaneous application for amendment of prayer of their appeal and also filed stay application for setting aside the operation of the impugned order. 6.Ld. Advocate submits that the goods were imported in the year December,2009 and it is more than five years lapsed they have imported these goods for setting up of machinery for manufacture of injection of moulding machines and they have imported these parts in two different Bill of Entries and on which one is al....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... confiscated and ADD was imposed, treating them as full machines not parts thereof. Therefore, he says that this amendment even if it is considered should be only after succeeding their appeal on merits. 8. As regards stay application filed by the Revenue, Ld. AR submits that they are not only filed against setting aside fine and penalty and also one of the main ground of the Revenue appeal is that Commissioner (Appeals) remarks in his impugned order by stating that "duty avoidance admitted by the appellant falls within the broad category of tax planning instead of tax evasion". Therefore, he prayed for staying of operation of the impugned order. 9. After considering both sides we find that the appellants seeks to amend their prayer t....