2006 (3) TMI 516

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es are covered by a single impugned order, we are taking up both Parties appeals and Revenue's appeals in this order. 2. The appellants mentioned in the Table above Sl. Nos. 1 to 3, imported Second-Hand Photocopiers. Since the declared value was not acceptable to the Department, proceedings were initiated against the appellants. The appellants engaged Chartered Engineers. The Chartered Engineers certified the values of the imported goods after inspection. In fact, two Chartered Engineers were engaged. The first one is M/s. SGS India Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad. The second Chartered Engineer is M/s. Moody International (India) Pvt. Ltd. The original authority rejected the values certified by M/s. SGS on the ground that in the note to the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iginal authority was that there is a note to the effect that they do not guarantee the value. In respect of the Certificate issued by M/s. Moody International (India) Pvt. Ltd., the original authority has not given any proper reason but, relied on Supreme Court's decision in the case of Gajra Bevel Gears v. CC, Bombay - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 612 (SC). Further, the Advocate submitted that in the light of the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of AtuI Commodities (P) Ltd. v. CC, Cochin & Hyderabad - 2005 (184) E.L.T. 135 (Tri.-LB), the second-hand photocopiers do not require any licence during the relevant period. He said that this decision was challenged by the Revenue in the Andhra Pradesh High Court and Revenue's appeal has been dismisse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r assemblies are freely importable. He relied on CESTAT's decision reported in 2005 (184) E.L.T. 135 (Tri. - LB) = 2005-TIOL-47-CESTAT-DEL-LB 6695. Revenue is aggrieved over the above decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that used photocopiers are restricted in terms of para 2.17 of EXIM Policy 2002-2007 and the same is reiterated by DGFT in unequivocal terms vide their Policy Circular No. 19/2003. Further, Revenue relied on the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. Venkatesh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs, Trichy - Final Order No. 264/2005, dated 1-3-2005 [2005 (192) E.L.T. 818 (Tri.)]. We find that in the case of AtuI Commodities v. CCE Cochin & Hyderabad (cited supra), the Larger Bench has gone through the issue....