2015 (2) TMI 378

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... petitioner has imported into the country second hand multifunctional copier machines (Plus A-3 size) (in short collectively referred to as the machines). 2.1 The import of the said machines was made by the petitioner on 05.12.2013. The petitioner avers that it has obtained a Chartered Engineer's Certificate, dated 12.12.2013, which is indicative of the fact that, the said machines, have a residual value equivalent to approximately 5-6 years. 2.2 Furthermore, the said certificate also indicates that the machines in issue cannot be classified as E-waste. 2.3 Apart from the above, it is also averred by the petitioner that the appraising officer of respondent no.1, has certified in the order dated 20.12.2013 that the machines imported are t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he captioned petition was moved in this court on 23.04.2014. On that date, the matter was adjourned to 01.05.2014. On the returnable date, i.e., 01.05.2014, respondent no.3 was represented by Mr. Sumit Pushkarna, who was then on the panel of Central Government. Since then, the respondents have filed their returns in the matter. 7. The learned counsel for respondent no.1 and 2 say that the Madras High Court judgment in Shrishti Digital Solution dealt with an earlier policy, which stands amended vide notification no.35(RE-2012)/2009-2014, dated 28.02.2013. It is therefore contended by the counsel for the respondents that not only the import of the said machines is, restricted, but that, import can be made only with due authorisation. 7.1 Ac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Madras High Court in the aforementioned judgment, is that, if the good in issue, like the subject machines, are complete machines and not imported, in cannibalized form, they cannot be classified as E-waste. Therefore, the said judgment applies in all force to the petitioner's case. 11. In these circumstances, in my view, the most appropriate course would be to direct respondent no.3 to determine as to whether or not the goods in issue i.e., the aforementioned machines are hazardous waste, as per the 2008 Rules. In arriving at its conclusion, respondent no.3 will take into account the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Shrishti Digital Solution as also the following judgment of the Madras High Court, dated 08.10.2014, passed....