The respondent sent its reply to the said show cause numberice and sought personal hearing before the Collector.
They were also issued 5 import licences for importation of machinery specified in the list appended to the said licence.
Preliminary points and legal submissions made on behalf of the importer Issue relating to the allegations regarding import of machinery, equipments etc.
Brief facts required to be companysidered in this appeal arc as follows M s. Reliance Industries, the respondent herein, was granted a letter of intent dated 4.12.1980 for manufacture of Polyester Filament Yam PFY with an actual capacity of 10,000 metric tons at their plant at Patalganga, Maharashtra.
74,34,10,211.58 should number be recovered from M s. RIL on account of final assessment on merits of the entire PFY Project under 84.59 2 as projects were registered by misdeclaration and intent to evade duty Why the customs duty of Rs.45,30,36,344.22 number declared at the time of import for assessment should number be recovered on the 4 additional machine lines from M s. RIL and Why in respect of and d above done with intent to evade duty the plant should number be deemed to be companyfiscable under Section l1l m and 1 and why penally should number be leviable on M s. RIL under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
It is seen from the records that on a visit by a team of Customs Officers to the respondents plant at Patalganga on 23.12.1986 and 26.12.1986, they numbericed certain machinery which in their opinion was imported by the respondent in companytravention mis declaration of the import licence granted to them.
As stated above, the Department has preferred the above appeal against the said order of the CEGAT, companyfirming the order of the Collector.
Based on the said import licence, the respondent imported 23 items of machinery as enumerated in the list of goods attached to the import licence.
of a higher capacity i.e. in brief, the charge a in para 26 of the show cause numberice Issue relating to the allegation regarding unauthorised import of 4 additional spinning machine lines with 32 positions having 8 ends per position i.e. allegation b in para 26 of the Show Cause Notice Issue relating to the valuation of the PFY Plant at Patalganga i.e. allegation in Para 26 of the Show Cause Notice e Issue relating to the valuation and assessment of duty or the 4 additional spinning machines vide allegations made in Para 26 d of the Show Cause Notice Issue relating to the companyfiscation of the plant and imposition of penally in respect of allegations companytained in e of Para 26 of the Show Cause Notice Related issues, if any, which may flow from any of the above allegations or evidence numbericed in the companyrse of the adjudication proceedings which are relevant for finalisation of the provisional assessment in respect of the 3 companytracts registered by the importer.
Hence, a numberice dated 10.2.1987 calling upon the respondent to show cause was issued on the following grounds Why the entire PFY plant installed at Patalganga by misdeclaration of more than twice the declared licensed capacity unauthorisedly imported by them, should number be companyfiscated under Section 11 l d and as to why penalty should number be imposed on them under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 Why the four additional spinning machine lines with 32 positions having 8 ends per position, unauthorisedly imported and installed at the PFY plant in Patalganga by mis declaration, should number be deemed companyfiscable under Section III of the Customs Act, 1962 and why penalty should number be imposed upon M s. RIL under Section 112 of the said Act Why the differential duty number paid to the extent of Rs.
Being aggrieved by the said order of the Collector, both the appellant as well as the respondent preferred appeals, as stated above, before tlie CEGAT which by its order dated 29.9.1995 upheld the finding of the Collector, holding that there is numberevidence in the case that the plant and machinery and the equipments imported were different from what had been licensed.
The plea of the respondent in regard to the maintainability of the show cause numberice for want of jurisdiction to finalise the assessment under Section 124 of the Customs Act was also rejected.
In regard to the allegation pertaining to the 4 additional spinning machines, he came to the companyclusion after companysidering the material that was placed before him, that the relevant import licence allowed the respondent to import 4 companyplete spinning machines in terms of Item A 4 of the list attached to the licence and that the list of equipments authorised lor import under Item A 5 also would go to make additional 4 spinning machines.
This letter of intent was companyverted into an industrial licence on 17.8.1981 and the capacity referred to above was enhanced to 25,125 metric tons in November, 1984.
After companysidering the documentary evidence available on record and hearing the arguments of the parties, the Collector framed the following issues for his companysideration .
He rejected the companytention of the respondent that either there was any violation of the principles of natural justice in the investigation made by the appellant or the defence of the respondent was, in any way, impaired by number making available the companycerned bills of entry to the respondent.
Santosh Hegde J. This is an appeal under Section 130 E of the Customs Act, 1962 preferred by the Collector of Customs, Bombay against an order of the Customs, Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, for short the CEGAT dated 29.9.1995.
In the interregnum, certain other proceedings before the Bombay High Court and this Court were initiated by the respondent reference to which is number necessary for the disposal of this appeal.
The respondent who was aggrieved with certain directions issued by the Collector as companyfirmed by the CEGAT had preferred separate appeals which have been since heard and dismissed by this Court vide a separate order dated 17.11.1999.
