2015 (8) TMI 1170

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ess-ways Industrial Development Authority under the Government of Uttar Pradesh. For the said project, the petitioner caused import of one Electronic Sensor Paver of Vogele Model, Super 1800-3 with AB-600 T.V Screed, for which the petitioner filed Bill of Entry for clearance of the goods and sought for duty-exemption from basic customs duty and other duties under the Notification No.12/2012-Customs, dated 17.03.2012, read with Notification No.5/2014, dated 17.02.2014 in Sl.No.368-A. 2. The third respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Customs raised queries as to the rejection of the exemption of duty and directed the petitioner to furnish the product catalogue and other import documents, for which the petitioner replied on 16.02.2015, justif....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....petitioner to pay the differential duty. 3. As against the above order of the third respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Customs, the petitioner preferred appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, before the second respondent-Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) on 13.03.2015 and the said appeal was registered. The petitioner paid 7.5% of the duty imposed as pre-deposit for entertainment of the appeal. As the goods have not been cleared, the petitioner was given preference for the hearing of the appeal, as the Bill of Entry had been alive. However, the second respondent-appellate authority is guided by the ruling of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, in the above said case of Gammon India Ltd., which ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....able for the petitioner. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal construed the earlier Notification strictly, without giving room for any latitude and also not taking into account the object of the Notification in allowing the import at concession rate of duty in respect of the equipment imported for public purpose of laying of roads and highways. It is also specifically stated by the petitioner that the roads and construction thereof, are the sine-qua-non for the development and progress and are the hallmark of civilization, which is the dream of the policy makers and Constitutional functionaries. 6. The imported machine is solely for speedy and effective implementation of the project in question and the further delay in non-use of the machinery....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2/2012, Sl.No.368-A or not, which question has been placed before the Commissioner of Appeals, which is now in the final stage of disposal and hence, it is premature on the part of the petitioner to approach this Court; the contention of the petitioner that the second respondent-appellate authority may merely kow-tow the reasonings of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, is based on surmises and conjectures. The lower authority, with diligence and alacrity, had kept in mind the "live" nature of goods; the Order-in-Original was issued to enable them to exhaust the remedy available under the provisions of the Customs Act before the second respondent-appellate authority. By the said Order-in-Original, the petitioner got the opportunity to clear t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion of this Court. It is further stated by the third respondent that by using the word 'kow-tow' in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioner attempted to disparage the Doctrine of Judicial Discipline, which warrants that the order of the Higher Judicial Forums be followed by the lower authority, and in this regard, the third respondent relied on various decisions and thereby the respondent(s) prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 9. Heard both sides and perused the material documents available on record. 10. It is to be noted that as per Notification No.12 of 2012-Customs, dated 17.03.2012, as amended by Notification No.5 of 2014, dated 17.02.2014, the relief sought for by the petitioner was negati....