TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (12) TMI 62
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilament Yarn (PFY) with an actual capacity of 10,000 metric tons at their plant at Patalganga, Maharashtra. This letter of intent was converted into an industrial licence on 17-8-1981 and the capacity referred to above was enhanced to 25,125 metric tons in November, 1984. They were also issued 5 import licences for importation of machinery specified in the list appended to the said licence. Based on the said import licence, the respondent imported 23 items of machinery as enumerated in the list of goods attached to the import licence. 3. It is seen from the records that on a visit by a team of Customs Officers to the respondent's plant at Patalganga on 23-12-1986 and 26-12-1986, they noticed certain machinery which in their opinion was imp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der Section 112 of, the Customs Act, 1962. 4. The respondent sent its reply to the said show cause notice and sought personal hearing before the Collector. In the interregnum, certain other proceedings before the Bombay High Court and this Court were initiated by the respondent; reference to which is not necessary for the disposal of this appeal. 5. After considering the documentary evidence available on record and hearing the arguments of the parties, the Collector framed the following issues for his consideration :- "(a) Preliminary points and legal submissions made on behalf of the importer; (b) Issue relating to the allegations regarding import of machinery, equipments etc. of a higher capacity i.e. in brief, the charge (a) in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion pertaining to the 4 additional spinning machines, he came to the conclusion after considering the material that was placed before him, that the relevant import licence allowed the respondent to import 4 complete 'spinning machines in terms of Item A-4 of the list attached to the licence and that the list of equipments authorised for import under Item A-5 also would go to make additional 4 spinning machines. Accordingly, he held that the charges contained in sub-paras (b), (c), (d) and (e) of para 26 of the show cause notice cannot be sustained. Consequently, he held that the intended levy of penalty under Section 112 of the Act in terms of para 26, sub-para (e) relating to additional spinning machines could not be sustained. 7. As agai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rge of misdeclaration with intent to evade duty and unauthorised import of goods in excess of the licensed quantity. The appeal of the respondent also came to be dismissed. 9. As stated above, the Department has preferred the above appeal against the said order of the CEGAT, confirming the order of the Collector. The respondent who was aggrieved with certain directions issued by the Collector as confirmed by the CEGAT had preferred separate appeals which have been since heard and dismissed by this Court vide a separate order dated 17-11-1999. In this appeal, on behalf of the appellant, it was argued that the authorities below failed to take into consideration the admitted fact that by virtue of the import made by the respondent which accor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of equipments authorised for import. Hence, according to him, there was no misdeclaration by the respondent in regard to the import of machinery and what was imported was in accordance with the list appended to the import licence. 11. In its order, the CEGAT has also dealt with these questions independently and noticed the arguments of the Department that the machinery enumerated at serial No. 4 in the list attached to the licence, covered only spinning frame and not complete spinning machines. After noticing this argument, it took into consideration the evidence that was adduced by the Department in support of its contention and also those produced on behalf of the respondent and came to the conclusion that there is no reason whatsoever ....