2018 (2) TMI 584

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a Reddy, AC (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER Per: Bench Both the appeals filed by the appellant-assessee and respondent-Revenue are heard together as they are arising out of the impugned order dated 21.12.2009. 2. The issue in the appeal relates to the import of old/used digital multifunctional Print and Copying Machines at a declared value of GBP 22440 (C&F) vide Invoice No.6734 dated 20.03.2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 4. Today when the matter came up for hearing, the Ld. Advocate, Shri A.K. Jayaraj, submits that such machines became restricted items only with effect from 05.06.2012 and during the relevant period since the goods were not restricted, redemption fine and penalty imposed are unsustainable. That the issue has already been finally decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CC, Tutic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... We find merit in the submissions of the Ld. Advocate and the reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of City Office Equipment (supra). Following the same, we hold that the imported goods in question are not restricted item. We find during the relevant period the impugned goods were not restricted and the adjudicating authority has invoked only Section 111 (d) to h....