TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 271
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to whether the same are freely importable or required licence, they on 11.2.95 wrote to the Directorate General of Foreign Trade for clarification in this regard and the DGFT vide letter dated 22.2.96 clarified that the de-coders, in question, were freely importable. The appellant, thereafter, imported seven consignments of decoders of model CDE-2002 BMAC valued at Rs.6,46,73,363/- . Though according to the appellant, the goods were classifiable under Heading No.8529, the department classified these goods under heading 8528 and not only charged duty on that basis, but also asked for import licence, as according to the department, in the foreign trade policy during the period of dispute, the goods falling under heading no.8528, which covere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l before the Tribunal which disposed of vide order-in-appeal dated 24.3.99 by which the matter was remanded to the Commissioner, since the appellant's application for import licence was pending. However, the department still did not wait for the DGFT's decision on the appellant's application for import licence and the Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 30.12.99 again held the import to be unauthorized and the goods imported as liable for confiscation. By this order, the Commissioner once again confirmed the previous order dated 31.07.98. In second round of appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal vide order-in-appeal dated 4.10.2000 again remanded the matter with directions to consider the appellant's plea that in view of the Tribuna....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idence and vide order-in-appeal dated 29.2.2012 remanded the matter to the Commissioner for fresh decision in the light of the import licence having been issued by DGFT specifically covering the import in question. The matter was once again adjudicated in the fourth round of adjudication by the Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 9.5.2012. In course of proceedings before the Commissioner, the appellant specifically pleaded that in view of the specific import licence having been issued by the DGFT covering the imports, the confiscation would no longer be sustainable. However, the Commissioner vide order dated 9.5.2012 once again held the import to be unauthorized and ordered confiscation of the goods and imposed redemption fine of Rs.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enge the validity of the import licence issued by DGFT, that Government of India has powers to issue import licence to regularize imports already made, and that in view of this the impugned order holding the goods imported as liable for confiscation and imposing penalty is not sustainable at all. He also pleaded that for the same reasons, there is no merit in the revenue's appeal. 4. Shri Promod Kumar, ld. Joint CDR defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner and emphasized that the DGFT has no powers to issue import licence for the goods already imports and as such, the import licence dated 13.3.2000 produced by the DGFT is invalid. 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the ....