Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. M/S. Enmass Process Technologies (P) Ltd.

Commissioner of Customs, Chennai vs M/S. Enmass Process Technologies (P) Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai Decided Dec 09, 2009
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/942104

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
C/184 of 2003 and C/CO/7 of 2003
Subject
Right to Information

Case Summary

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

Right to Information

Key legal issue
Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

Advocate Shri C. Rangaraju, SDR, for the Appellant. Smt. Sridevi, Advocate for the Respondents.

Respondent

M/S. Enmass Process Technologies (P) Ltd.

Excerpt

per jyoti balasundaram the respondents herein filed a bill of entry in march 2003 for dosing pump with motor, agitator motor and pressure relief valves. there was a variation in the technical specification relating to kilo watt and rpm in the first two items and these two items were confiscated by the adjudicating authority on the ground of misdeclaration with an option for redemption on payment of a fine of rs.1,90,000/- and imposition of penalty of rs.95,000/-. the commissioner (appeals), however, set aside the confiscation and penalty and allowed the appeal; hence this appeal by the revenue. 2. we have heard both sides. we find that the amendment was carried out by the dgft in the deec licence granted to the importers so as to merit description of the consignment imported. we, therefore, agree with the finding of the lower appellate authority that the difference in ratings as declared and ratings available on the imported goods are not to be considered as misdeclaration with the intention to evade duty so as to warrant confiscation and penal action. we, therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. 3. the cross-objection is only in the nature of comments upon/reply to the revenue s appeal and is therefore dismissed.

Full Judgment

Per Jyoti Balasundaram

The respondents herein filed a Bill of Entry in March 2003 for dosing pump with motor, agitator motor and pressure relief valves. There was a variation in the technical specification relating to kilo watt and rpm in the first two items and these two items were confiscated by the adjudicating authority on the ground of misdeclaration with an option for redemption on payment of a fine of Rs.1,90,000/- and imposition of penalty of Rs.95,000/-. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, set aside the confiscation and penalty and allowed the appeal; hence this appeal by the Revenue.

2. We have heard both sides. We find that the amendment was carried out by the DGFT in the DEEC licence granted to the importers so as to merit description of the consignment imported. We, therefore, agree with the finding of the lower appellate authority that the difference in ratings as declared and ratings available on the imported goods are not to be considered as misdeclaration with the intention to evade duty so as to warrant confiscation and penal action. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.

3. The cross-objection is only in the nature of comments upon/reply to the Revenue s appeal and is therefore dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial