- (1.) 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 and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, (for short 'the CEGAT') dated 29-9-1995. Brief facts required to be considered in this appeal are as follows : M/s. Reliance Industries, the respondent herein, was granted a letter of intent dated 4-12-1980 for manufacture of Polyester Filament Yarn (PFY) with an actual capacity of 10,000 metric tons at their plant at Patalganga, Maharashtra. This letter of intent was converted into an industrial licence on 17-8-1981 and the capacity referred to above was enhanced to 25,125 metric tons in November, 1984. They were also issued 5 import licences for importation of machinery specified in the list appended to the said licence. 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.
(2.) It is seen from the records that on a visit by a team of Customs Officers to the respondent's plant at Patalganga on 23-12-1986 and 26-12-1986, they noticed certain machinery which in their opinion was imported by the respondent in contravention/mis-declaration of the import licence granted to them. Hence, a notice dated 10-2-1987 calling upon the respondent to show cause was issued on the following grounds. (a) Why the entire PFY plant installed at Patalganga by misdeclaration of more than twice the declared licensed capacity unauthorisedly imported by them, should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) and as to why penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962; (b) 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 not be deemed confiscable under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 and why penalty should not be imposed upon M/s. RIL under Section 112 of the said Act; (c) Why the differential duty not paid to the extent of Rs. 74,34,10,211.58 should not 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; (d) Why the customs duty of Rs. 45,30,36,344.22 not declared at the time of import for assessment should not be recovered on the 4 additional machine lines from M/s. RIL and (e) Why in respect of (c) and (d) above done with intent to evade duty the plant should not be deemed to be confiscable under Section 111(m) and (l) and why penalty should not be leviable on M/s. RIL under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
(3.) XX XX XX;