By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, DEC 23, 2016: THIS is a Revenue appeal filed in the year 2005.

It was the case of the respondent before the adjudicating authority as well as the first appellate authority that they had imported two tunnel boring machines; since they were of huge dimensions, the same were dismantled in convenient assemblies to suit the manner of packing of handling and packing for transporting to India, hence they were imported in knocked down condition in two consignments and the bills of entry were provisionally assessed.

The adjudicating authority accepted the contention of the respondent and finalized the assessment.

Revenue was aggrieved and preferred an appeal on the ground that what was imported was parts and components of second hand machine, which require special import licence and as they were not registered as project imports, the imported goods viz. parts and components of second hand machinery, in the absence of any special import licence, should have been confiscated.

The Commissioner(A) rejected the contention of the Revenue and, therefore, appeal was filed in the CESTAT.

The AR reiterated the grounds of appeal.

None appeared on behalf of the respondent.

The Bench extracted the findings recorded by the Commissioner(A) and which are -

"As per the respondents, because of extraordinarily huge dimensions, the same were dismantled in convenient assemblies to suit the manner of packing/handling them for purpose of subsequent transporting to India. As per them, they have not imported "parts and components" of second hand machine, which has been wrongly mentioned in the appeal but they have imported second hand tunneling equipment in semi knocked down condition, and the appraising group has correctly assessed the same under merit under separate tariff heading. From perusal of five Bills of Entries covered under six invoices submitted by the respondents at the time of hearing, it is found that the goods imported thereunder have been classified on merit under different chapter headings. Hence, the contention in the appeal that the goods have been classified under a single heading is not factually correct.

In the appeal it has been contended that parts of machines being second hand, as per para 2.17 of EXIM Policy, one licence is required. As per the respondents what has been imported is two set of second hand tunnel boring machine/equipment in knocked down condition, most of which are allowed under O.G.L…It is not the case in appeal that Tunneling & boring machines are not capital goods. For the goods which are not capital goods i.e., diesel locomotives, the respondents have already submitted licence at the time of clearance. Hence the said contention of the Deptt.is not correct."

Noting that in the appeal before Tribunal, revenue has not produced any additional evidence to take a different view than the concurred finding of fact recorded by the first appellate authority, the appeal was dismissed.

In passing: Also see 2016-TIOL-2876-CESTAT-MUM & 2016-TIOL-2885-CESTAT-MUM .

(See 2016-TIOL-3306-CESTAT-MUM)