Artek Imaging Pvt. Ltd. and Artek Vs. Cce

Artek Imaging Pvt. Ltd. and Artek vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Aug 25, 2004

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/36345

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/36345
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Aug 25, 2004
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Artek Imaging Pvt. Ltd. and Artek

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(99)ECC207

Excerpt

.....be confiscated on the ground of misdeclaration. the adjudicating authority allowed redemption of the goods on payment of redemption fine. personal penalties also imposed.2. the appellant made import of mini lab system and declared the year of manufacture as 1994. the appellant also declared the value of the goods as singapore $ 12,800. on investigation by the customs authorities it was found that machines were not of the year 1994. as per the exim policy the machines which were of more than 10 years old are restricted and its import requires specific licence. the contention of the appellant is that as per the engineers certificate the year of the manufacture is 1994. therefore, the revenue has, without any evidence, held that the appellant misdeclared the year of manufacture.the contention of the revenue is that as per the information received from the manufacturer, the model imported by the appellant were manufactured during the year 1988-91. the contention is that as the manufacturer stopped the manufacture of the model imported by the appellant in the year 1991, therefore, the declaration made by the appellant that the machine is manufactured in the year 1994 is not correct.3. in respect of valuation the contention of the appellant is that they had purchased the second-hand machine and true and correct value is declared in the bill of entry, whereas the revenue is relying upon the letter written by the manufacturers delhi office where the value of the machine in the year of introduction was mentioned as singpore $ 66650 and the adjudicating authority after giving depreciation fixed the value of the imported goods.4. we find that appellant declared the year of manufacture of the machines as 1994, whereas as per the letter written by the manufacturer, it is clear that this model was manufactured during the period 1988-1991. in these circumstances we are unable to find merit in the arguments of the appellants in respect of the year of manufacture.in respect of.....

Full Judgment

1. Heard both sides, the applicant filed this appeal against the adjudication order whereby the value of the goods imported by the appellant were enhanced and ordered to be confiscated on the ground of misdeclaration. The adjudicating authority allowed redemption of the goods on payment of redemption fine. Personal penalties also imposed.

2. The appellant made import of Mini Lab System and declared the year of manufacture as 1994. The appellant also declared the value of the goods as Singapore $ 12,800. On investigation by the Customs authorities it was found that machines were not of the year 1994. As per the EXIM Policy the machines which were of more than 10 years old are restricted and its import requires specific licence. The contention of the appellant is that as per the Engineers Certificate the year of the manufacture is 1994. Therefore, the Revenue has, without any evidence, held that the appellant misdeclared the year of manufacture.

The contention of the Revenue is that as per the information received from the manufacturer, the model imported by the appellant were manufactured during the year 1988-91. The contention is that as the manufacturer stopped the manufacture of the model imported by the appellant in the year 1991, therefore, the declaration made by the appellant that the machine is manufactured in the year 1994 is not correct.

3. In respect of valuation the contention of the appellant is that they had purchased the second-hand machine and true and correct value is declared in the Bill of Entry, whereas the Revenue is relying upon the letter written by the manufacturers Delhi Office where the value of the machine in the year of introduction was mentioned as Singpore $ 66650 and the adjudicating authority after giving depreciation fixed the value of the imported goods.

4. We find that appellant declared the year of manufacture of the machines as 1994, whereas as per the letter written by the manufacturer, it is clear that this model was manufactured during the period 1988-1991. In these circumstances we are unable to find merit in the arguments of the appellants in respect of the year of manufacture.

In respect of valuation also as the manufacturer supplied the price of the machine and the adjudicating authority after allowing the depreciation fixed the value of the goods, this course does not appear to be an arbitrary method of valuation in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gajraj Bevel Gears v. CC, Bombay, 2000 (115) ELT 612 (SC). In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appellant also pleaded regarding redemption fine and penalty. Taking into consideration the value of the goods, we find no merit in this argument also. The appeals are dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Artek Imaging Pvt. Ltd. and Artek vs Cce Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge S Kang, N T C.N.B.