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

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/942104
SubjectRight to Information
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided OnDec-09-2009
Case NumberC/184 of 2003 and C/CO/7 of 2003
JudgeThe Honourable Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President &Amp; the Honourable Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member
AppellantCommissioner of Customs, Chennai
RespondentM/S. Enmass Process Technologies (P) Ltd.
Advocates:Shri C. Rangaraju, SDR, for the Appellant. Smt. Sridevi, Advocate for the Respondents.
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.
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.