TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 573
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hroo, Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the main appellant. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the main appellant imported various machines for dairy plant and filed bills of entry for the clearance. The imports were through ICD Tughlakabad and Mundra Port. The period covered is from February, 2015 to June, 2015. These imports were assessed and cleared under EPCG scheme with zero customs duty. The officers of DRI conducted certain verifications in July, 2015 in the factory premises of the main appellant. The imported goods were examined; expert opinions taken, further examination of various documents were made. On completion of enquiry. the SCN dated 30.12.2015 was issued to both the appellants proposing confiscation of goods seized....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....25 of the Act. He confirmed differential customs duty as demanded in the SCN totalling Rs. 21,32,59,947/-. He also imposed penalties on the appellants under Section 112 (a) ad 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. 6. The ld Counsel appearing for both the appellants contested the finding in the impugned order on the following grounds: a) The impugned order was passed without appreciating the inherent contradiction in the proceedings to confirm duty on the value of new machine while holding the imported goods were, in fact, used and old. b) The original authority should have re-determined the value instead of recording that only assessee officer can deal with correct valuation of the imported goods. This is a mis-conception. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for setting-up a dairy will be covered under the heading 8434 and in terms of EPCG licenses granted by the DGFT. The exemption granted to the appellant is correctly availed. h) Alternatively, it is submitted that entry at S.No.232 of the above Notification is available as the goods imported were used in the factory of production in terms of the conditions mentioned therein. i) The adjudicating authority failed to strictly adhere to the provisions of Section 138B of the Act before admitting the various evidence for arriving at his finding. 7. The ld AR strongly contested the appeals. He submitted that the appellants imported used machines which are not at all eligible for concession under EPCG scheme. This is an admitte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellants repeatedly pleaded that as the goods were second-hand/used and old, the adjudicating authority should have revised the value by rejecting the declared transaction value. It would appear that the appellants are trying to solvage something out of a lost case. When the goods were found not to be eligible for concession under EPCG scheme, having found to be old and used, the appellants took a plea that, that being so, the value should be accordingly reduced. We find such submission as untenable. We pointedly asked the ld Counsel, during the course of submission, as to whether the appellants are admitting that the transaction values, as per invoices submitted and declared in the bills of entry, were false. The ld Counsel submitted that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e at correct classification. He has listed-out 10 such items in the table below para 5.4.4.1.2 of the impugned order. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Pioneer Embroideries-2015 (332) ELT 602 SC, the original authority proceeded to classify the goods in the form and state they were presented at the time of import. Relying on various other decisions of the Apex Court, he concluded that the classification declared by the appellant to the DGFT does not by itself entitle them to a customs classification for assessment under the same heading. We note that after due consideration of the HSN explanatory notes, actual nature of the imported goods and applying the General Interpretation Rules, the original authority has rig....