Balaji and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Balaji and Co. vs Commissioner of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Feb 01, 2005

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/37908

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/37908
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, Vice-, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Feb 01, 2005
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

Balaji and Co.

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(190)ELT419TriDel

Excerpt

.....machines was not imported along with this consignment. therefore, the finding of commissioner of customs is that these are complete photocopier is not sustainable. the appellant also pleaded that in case goods in questions are treated as photocopier machines in such case these are not liable for confiscation as these are capital goods.4. the contention of the revenue is that in fact these are complete photocopier machines, the control panels in equal number were also imported which are separately packed in the same consignment. the revenue has relying upon the opinion and cross-examination conducted by the importer of shri m.j. damodaran. in his cross-examination shri damodaran specifically stated that the goods were examined and these were in photocopier machines in working condition and also were complete photocopier machines.5. we find that in this case the claim of the appellant is that the goods in question are old and used parts of photocopier machines and not complete photocopier machines. we find that shri m.j. damodaran, chartered engineer whose opinion is relied upon by the revenue to say that these are complete photocopier machines, was cross-examined by the importer at length. in his cross-examination, he specifically mentioned that these are complete photocopier machines in workable conditions and during test the copies were produced by these machines. in these circumstances, we find no merit in the contention of the appellant that these are only components of the photocopier machines. the contention of the appellant that these are capital goods, therefore, are not liable for confiscation is also without any merit as the appellant had misdeclared the description of the goods, therefore, the goods are liable for confiscation. in these circumstances, we find no merit in the appeal, the appeal is dismissed.

Full Judgment

2. The appellant filed this appeal against adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs. The appellant made import of certain goods and declared in the Bill of Entry as old and used components of photocopier. The goods were examined by the Customs authorities and it was found that these were not part of photocopier but these are old and used photocopier machines. The Customs authorities obtained opinion of Shri M.J. Damodaran, Chartered Engineer of Superintendence Company of India Ltd. Shri M.J. Damodaran in his opinion opined that these are complete old and used photocopier machines. The Customs authorities treated the imported goods as old and used photocopier machines and enhanced the value. The goods were also confiscated on the ground of misdeclaration and as these old and used parts of photocopier require specific import licence.

3. The contention of the appellant is that they made import of old and used parts and quantity of each part separately mentioned in the invoices. These are not complete photocopier machines, therefore, the adjudication order is not sustainable. The appellant submitted that number of parts was imported by them from USA which are old and used and declaration was filed as per the invoices supplied by the supplier of the goods. As the invoices mentioned that these components of old and used photocopier machines, therefore, this cannot be assessed as a complete photocopier. The contention is that as the Control Panel which is an important part of photocopier machines was not imported along with this consignment. Therefore, the finding of Commissioner of Customs is that these are complete photocopier is not sustainable. The appellant also pleaded that in case goods in questions are treated as photocopier machines in such case these are not liable for confiscation as these are capital goods.

4. The contention of the Revenue is that in fact these are complete photocopier machines, the Control Panels in equal number were also imported which are separately packed in the same consignment. The Revenue has relying upon the opinion and cross-examination conducted by the importer of Shri M.J. Damodaran. In his cross-examination Shri Damodaran specifically stated that the goods were examined and these were in photocopier machines in working condition and also were complete photocopier machines.

5. We find that in this case the claim of the appellant is that the goods in question are old and used parts of photocopier machines and not complete photocopier machines. We find that Shri M.J. Damodaran, Chartered Engineer whose opinion is relied upon by the Revenue to say that these are complete photocopier machines, was cross-examined by the importer at length. In his cross-examination, he specifically mentioned that these are complete photocopier machines in workable conditions and during test the copies were produced by these machines. In these circumstances, we find no merit in the contention of the appellant that these are only components of the photocopier machines. The contention of the appellant that these are capital goods, therefore, are not liable for confiscation is also without any merit as the appellant had misdeclared the description of the goods, therefore, the goods are liable for confiscation. In these circumstances, we find no merit in the appeal, the appeal is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Balaji and Co. vs Commissioner of Customs Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge S Kang, Vice-, N T C.N.B.