TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1033
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsignment of old and used digital multifunction machines and filed Bill of Entry No. 321038 dated 29.09.2009 at Chennai Port, declaring the goods at a value of EUR 16,490/- (C&F) on the basis of the overseas supplier's invoice. 1.2 Since the goods were second-hand, the Department ordered first-check examination and valuation through an approved Chartered Engineer who certified the machines as old and used (7-9 years) and appraised their value at EUR 20,923/- (C&F). To avoid demurrage and detention charges, the Appellant accepted the enhanced value for assessment and paid duty thereon, while disputing the licensing objection. 1.3 The Additional Commissioner of Customs, Group5A, passed the Order-in-Original No. 9899/2009 dated 09.10.200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2015, remanded similar cases for denovo adjudication, pursuant to which confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were dropped for imports prior to 05.06.2012. The Appellant alone was denied similar relief due to rejection on limitation, leading to the present appeal before this Tribunal. 2. The Ld. Advocate Mr. N. Viswanathan, appeared for the Appellant and the Ld. Authorized Representative Ms. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, appeared for the Revenue. 3. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted as follows: - i. The rejection of the appeal on limitation is legally unsustainable, as the date of dispatch was erroneously treated as the date of receipt. The endorsement on the Order-in-Original itself records receipt ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by limitation? ii. Whether second-hand digital multifunction print and copying machines were restricted for import in September 2009? iii. Whether confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act is sustainable? iv. Whether redemption fine and penalty under Section 112(a) are legally tenable? Whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was barred by limitation? 7.1 We find that Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 mandates that the period of limitation is to be reckoned from the date of communication of the order and not from the date of its dispatch. In the present case, the endorsement on the Order-in-Original itself clearly records the date of receipt as 03.11.2009, whereas the appeal was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....3 We further note that the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Madras High Court have been accepted and implemented by the Department without further challenge in denovo adjudications and connected cases. 8.4 The Notification dated 05.06.2012 is prospective, as held by the Supreme Court in Asian Food Industries [2006 (204) ELT 8 (SC). 8.5 Since the present import took place in September 2009, the goods were freely importable, and confiscation under Section 111(d) is unsustainable. 8.6 We also take note of the fact that the import in question pertains to the year 2009, and the legal position governing such imports has long since been settled by the Hon'ble Madras High Court and accepted by the Department. In identical and connected ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne imposed under Section 125 and the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 are without authority of law and are hereby set aside. 11. In view of the foregoing findings and discussions, we finally hold as under: - 11.1 The impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 578/2016 dated 13.05.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), Chennai, is hereby set aside, the rejection of the appeal on the ground of limitation being unsustainable in law. 11.2 The Order-in-Original No. 9899/2009 dated 09.10.2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Group-5A, Chennai, is set aside insofar as it relates to confiscation of the goods, imposition of redemption fine under Section 125 and penalty under Section 112(a) o....