TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (2) TMI 715
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 78 such machines was imported during the period from July, 2000 to February, 2001. The goods were supplied by N.C.R. Corporation of the United Kingdom, of which N.C.R. Corporation India Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary. Both N.C.R. Corporation of UK and N.C.R. Corporation of India are wholly owned subsidiary of N.C.R. Corporation U.S.A. In the bills of entry that were filed for clearance, the importer claimed the benefit of exemption contained in Entry 227 of the table to Notification 61/2000. This grants partial exemption from duty to automated teller machine. The goods were assessed to duty extending the benefit of this exemption. In determining their assessable value, the officers of the department took note of the circular issued by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een imported by it earlier. The notice also sought to deny the benefit of exemption contained in notification that we have referred to earlier on one model 5780 on the ground that what had been imported was not an ATM, which was entitled to the exemption, but a cash dispenser. A penalty was proposed on the importer and on R. Raghunathan, its Director under Section 111 of the Act. In the order impugned in these appeals, the Commissioner has found all the charges established, ordered confiscation of the machines with an option to redeem them on payment of duty, fine and imposed penalties on the company and the Director. 4. One of the grounds that was raised before the Commissioner, was that, since the importation had been made in Chen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by officers at Calcutta Customs House. It noted that what was cleared in Calcutta had been declared to be construction material, cleared without payment of duty in terms of an exemption to diplomatic imports, under a certificate which was produced stated to have been issued by the Ministry of External Affairs. It noted that the Ministry had denied that this certificate had been issued. Although the Tribunal is silent as to what were the goods that were seized at Delhi, it notes clearly that the identity of goods having been imported at Calcutta was in dispute. It says in paragraph 11 "We also observe that in none of the decisions relied on by the appellants for questioning the jurisdiction of the Commissioner in the present appeal, the ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ordance with the provisions of the Act." It said however, this principle cannot apply to clandestinely imported goods, that is, goods in respect of which no order has been passed under Section 47 of the Act and no assessment has been made. In such a case, there is no assessment or order passed by a proper officer having jurisdiction over the place where the goods have been imported. Hence the proper officer having jurisdiction over the place of clandestine import and the proper officer having jurisdiction over the place of seizure, can either of them take action. Clearly, in the case before us, an order under Section 47 of the Act had been passed in respect of the goods by the authorities at Chennai. Till such order is set aside by staying ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion, is clearly unacceptable. The High Court's interim order did not go into the question of jurisdiction. It ordered issue of a notice within the prescribed period and adjudicate on the notice within the further period prescribed by it. This order however does not confer upon the Commissioner any jurisdiction that he did not otherwise possess in law. In fact, when the Commissioner says that he has jurisdiction, he has in effect adjudicating upon the issue as to whether he has jurisdiction or not. The claim that the Commissioner makes in his order that in reply to the notice, the parties stated that they were giving up the jurisdiction issue is clearly erroneous. In the reply to the notice, the jurisdiction of the Commissioner was clearly q....