2010 (12) TMI 897

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - In this application, the appellant seeks waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of duty of Rs. 7,13,812/- demanded by the lower authorities, in respect of the goods imported by the appellant. The appellant filed Bill of Entry dated 4-6-2008 for clearance of the following machines : (i)   &n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the order of adjudication. 3. In the present matter, the learned counsel, at the outset, submits that the show-cause notice was issued under Section 28 of the Customs Act without successfully challenging the assessment and hence the demand of duty is illegal. In this connection, counsel has relied on case law including Zenith Computers Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Goa,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he operating software have to be classified under Heading 84.71. A plea of financial hardships also has been raised. 5. The learned SDR, at the outset, submits that the Revenue was entitled to invoke Section 28 without modification of the assessment order. He relies on the Tribunal's decision in Venus Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai - 2006 (199) E.L.T. 661 (Tri.- Chennai), ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessee, they should be classified under the Heading where the main machine was classified (84.58). 6. In his rejoinder, the learned counsel submits that the case of Venus Enterprises is factually distinguishable. It is submitted that, in the present case, there was no kind of fraud involved and, therefore, the ratio of the decision in Venus Enterprises case cannot be applied. 7. W....