Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Digitech Photocopiers vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ... on 6 May, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order .20706 / 2014 Appeal(s) Involved: C/271/2006-DB [Arising out of OIA No.13-2006 dated 27/03/2006 passed by CC&CE(Appeals), Vizag. ] DIGITECH PHOTOCOPIERS 1024-P,SECTOR-7 EXTENSION, NEAR VIVEKANANDA ACADAMY, GURGOAN HARYYANA Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise ,Customs and Service Tax VISAKHAPATNAM-I NULL CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING PORT AREA VISAKHAPATNAM - 530035 ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)
Appearance:
None For the appellant Dr. A.K. Nigam, Addl. Commissioner(AR) For the respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 06/05/2014 Date of Decision: 06/05/2014 Order Per : B.S.V.MURTHY Nobody is present on behalf of the appellants. After taking note of the fact that the matter has been coming up on several occasions and on none of the occasions there was representation on behalf of the appellants before us, we consider that it would be appropriate to decide the matter finally. It would be pertinent to mention that the matter was listed on as many as 9 occasions till now.
2. Heard the learned AR and gone through the records.
3. The issue involved is misdeclaration of value of the photocopier parts of Japanese origin. Further the issue as to whether the appellants required of licence for importing second hand photocopier parts is also an issue.
4. As regards requirement of licence, the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Atul Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Cochin [2009(235) ELT 385 (SC)] has already taken a view that second hand photocopier parts required licence and have to be considered as second hand capital goods. Therefore the issue is no longer res integra. As regards the valuation, importers had accepted the value arrived at by the Department via letter dt. 11/04/204. Therefore valuation question also cannot be subjected in challenge. The value after enhancement is Rs.2,13,944/- and refemption fine of Rs.1,10,000/- and penalty of Rs.30,000/- have been imposed on the appellant. This Tribunal has generally been following imposition of fine to the extent of 10% and penalty to the extent of 5% of the value. Following the precedence, we consider that the penalty has to be reduced to Rs.22,000/- and fine has to be reduced to Rs.11,000/-.
5. In the result, the enhancement of value and demand for duty is upheld. Redemption fine and penalty are also upheld but reduced to the amounts as mentioned above. Appeal is disposed of in above terms.
(Operative portion of the order pronounced in open court) S.K. MOHANTY JUDICIAL MEMBER B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER Raja.
2