Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Patel Engg. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai on 19 August, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No. C/53/2003
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 178/2002-CAU dated 27.2.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Smt. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President
Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether the Members wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Patel Engg. Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Respondent
Appearance Shri S. Murugappan, Advocate, for the Appellants Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR for the Respondent CORAM Honble Smt. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of Hearing: 19.08.2009 Date of Decision: 19.08.2009 Final Order No. ____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram Vide the impugned order the Commissioner of Customs has held that goods imported by the appellants under Bill of Entry dated 29.1.2002 namely screen drum, electrical cabinets, geared motors and conveyor belts, bearings etc. were only components of complete hot mix plant and not a complete hot mix plant, fixed the value of the imported goods at DM 5.50 lakhs CIF, denied the benefit of exemption from duty in terms of Notification No. 17/2001-Cus. and ordered that the goods be assessed on merits, confiscated the goods under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- and imposed penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- upon the importer.
2. We have heard both sides. We note that an identical issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of IVRCL Infrastructures and Projects Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2004 (166) ELT 447, when only certain components of the hot mix plant were imported and the Tribunal rejected the plea of the importers that what was imported was a complete plant upheld the denial of exemption under the Notification, but reduced the fine in lieu of confiscation from Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- and set aside the penalty. The ratio of the above decision is applicable to all fours to the facts of the present case and hence following the same we uphold the impugned order, save for reduction in the fine to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and set aside the penalty.
3. The appeal is thus partly allowed as above.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy) (Jyoti Balasundaram)
Technical Member Vice President
Rex
??
??
??
??
3