TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 430
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ginal. Since the issue involved in all these appeals is common and therefore, all the ten appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the facts of the appeal No.C/2666/2010 are taken. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants imported certain goods (old & used Digital Multifunctional Print & Copier Machines with accessories and attachments) and filed a Bill of Entry No.261304 dated 11/01/2010 through its clearing agent. The total declared value of the said goods was Rs. 16,59,812/-. The 100 Digital Multifunctional Machines imported by the appellants have multifunction facilities, capable of performing two or more functions i.e. Scan Print, Fax, E-mail, etc. in standalone mode havi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inal, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (appeals) who rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original with modification in redemption fine and penalties. Hence the present appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is patently erroneous, contrary to law and is untenable and unsustainable in view of the judgments delivered by various higher judicial fora. He further submitted that the only function of photocopying machines is duplicating / copying documents and no original prints can be created there-from. On the other hand, Digital Multifunction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nue's appeal vide order dated 02/06/2016 in Customs Appeal No.7 of 2011, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has observed in Paragraph 2 as under : "2. We heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and the learned Senior Counsel and the other counsel, who appeared for the respondents. We find that the view taken by the Tribunal in another case was upheld by a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court, which judgment as also upheld by the Division Bench of Madras High Court in W.A. (MD) 890/2012 and connected cases. It is seen that the Directorate General of Foreign Trade has also issued communication dated 20.05.2013 informing the Commissioner of Customs, Kolkatta, that as per the advise of Ministry of Law and Justice, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case laws cited by both the parties. Since the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shivam International (supra) wherein identical issue was involved has been upheld by the jurisdictional High Court of Kerala, therefore, in my considered view that the used Digital Multifunction Machines imported by the appellants in various appeals are concerned, the imposition of redemption fine and penalties on the appellants is not sustainable in law. Therefore, I set aside the redemption fine and penalties imposed on the appellants. 6.1. In eight (08) appeals [C/2666/2010; C/2307/2010; C/1203/2011; C/1204/2011; C/1496/2011; C/1497/2011; C/1531/2011; C/1533/2011], 'analog photocopiers' were also imported. With regard to this item, no finding has be....