2010 (8) TMI 318

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the Commissioner of Appeals. 2. The appellant is a public limited company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, with the object of carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of telephone equipments and other allied objects. During the period September 2003 and December 2003, the appellant imported certain consignment of parts/components and accessories of cellular phone, hand sets, which were exempted from payment of customs duty under Notification No. 21/2002, dated 1-3-2002. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore, issued certificate in this regard entitling the appellant to claim exemption. Based or, the Bills of Entry, examination of goods and the declaration filed by the appellant, assessment was ma....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge, contended that, what is manufactured was the component of a mobile hand set, which is clearly exempted form payment of customs duty; in fact, the authorities accepted the said contention and extended the benefit and it is only after 2 years 3 months, proceedings were re-opened and the custom duty was sought to be levied. He further contended that, without challenging the earlier order of granting exemption, they could not have initiated this proceeding at all. Therefore, the proceedings initiated is one without jurisdiction and in support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventi....