TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 271
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 4,03,44,922/- being the differential duty paid on the import of LCD panels (parts of television) vide 18 bills of entry for the period from 11.01.2018 to 16.02.2018 and confirmed and ordered to appropriate the said amount as duty paid under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Mr.R.Parathasarathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the classification adopted by the notification for LCD panels is ultra vires the principles of classification prescribed by General Rules of interpretation and first Schedule of the Customs Act, 1975 and in this regard, the petitioner has filed separate Writ Petition seeking for a declaration to declare the said classification as ultra vires. It is submitted that LCD panels ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etal vs. CTO [1990 (79) STC 38], wherein it has been held that so long as the order of the Tribunal is not set aside, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is bound to give effect to it and failure to do so on the ground that the Department has filed appeal will be really a contempt of the Tribunal's order. To the same effect, the decision in the case of Pushpanjali Silk Pvt., Ltd., pvt., Ltd., vs. Chief Commissioner of Customs, [2006 (203) ELT 21 (Madras) was also referred to. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Kamalakshi Finance Corporation Ltd., [1991 (55) ELT 433], it is submitted that when there is a decision of the appellate authority, judicial discipline warrants that the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....description and adoption of tariff heading, which is left to the decision of the importer was CTH 8529. It is submitted that the petitioner is into the business of manufacture of television sets since its incorporation i.e., 16.12.2014, and has been for the past three years importing and clearing LCD panels under the Tariff Heading 8529 which is the correct tariff heading in respect of the cleared imported goods. It is also submitted that as a matter of fact the petitioner who had cleared two consignments of LCD panels, had been classifying the same under CTH 8529 even after the enhancement of duty to 7.5%. 5. With regard to the decision in the case of Secure Meters (supra), it is submitted that the component involved was LCD importer fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nology Inc., vs. The United States [19ITRD 1515]. 6. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and carefully perused the materials placed on record. 7. The first hurdle that the petitioner has to cross, is to justify their action in approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution without availing the appellate remedy against the impugned order. The reason for not availing the appellate remedy, as put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is by contending that it is not efficacious, as because, the issue involved in the petitioner's case is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Samsung India Electronics Pvt., Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs (Noida),(supra) and in the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roduct imported by the petitioner etc. Undoubtedly, such an exercise cannot be undertaken by a Writ Court. Therefore, to state that judicial discipline demands that the respondent ought to have followed the decisions of the Tribunal, is again a question, which cannot be gone into by the High Court, as it involves the appreciation of the factual position. The other reason given by the petitioner to by-pass the appellate remedy is by contending that deposit of 7.5% of the disputed duty for preferring an appeal is an onerous condition. The mandatory statutory condition to pre-deposit 7.5% of the duty demanded has been upheld. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek for a relief contrary to the statutory provision. 10. The petitioner seeks to ....