Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Digi Tech Systems vs Hyderabad - Customs on 31 January, 2019
(1) Appeal No. C/627/2010
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
REGIONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD
Division Bench
Court - I
APPEAL No. C/627/2010
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 09/2010(H-II)Cus, dated 04.03.2010 passed by
CCCE&ST (Appeals-II), Hyderabad)
DIGI TECH SYSTEMS .. APPELLANT
Vs
CC, HYDERABAD Customs .. RESPONDENT
Appearance Shri Mohd. Anwar Ali, Advocate for the appellant Shri P.S. Reddy, Dy. Commissioner/AR for the Respondent. Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Hon'ble Mr. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing: 31.01.2019 Date of Decision: 31.01.2019 FINAL ORDER No. A/30166/2019 [Order per: Mr. M.V. Ravindran)
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 09/2010(H-
II)Cus, dated 04.03.2010.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
(2) Appeal No. C/627/2010
3. On perusal of records, it transpires that the appellant herein had imported 103 numbers of Cannon Copiers and Printers and filed bill of entry on 17.02.2010. Appellant claims that these products are multifunction devices and also produced invoices issued by the supplier of the goods. The Assessing Officer, on examination found that these goods were second hand goods and according to him they were photocopy machines. As the second hand photocopy machines were restricted items which cannot be imported without licence, the Assessing Officer appointed a Chartered Engineer to evaluate the consignment which was done so and it was held by the adjudicating authority that imported goods are photocopiers and the value needs to be enhanced and confiscated the goods with liberty to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine and also imposed penalties. The first appellate authority did not agree with the contentions raised by the appellant in the appeal before him and rejected the appeal.
4. Before the Tribunal, Ld. Counsel submits that the goods which were imported were multi function devices and are so indicated in the bills of entry and the documents. It is his submission that second hand multi function devices are covered under the licence but they are covered only from 05.06.2012. He submits that identical issue came up before the Bench in the case of S.S. Enterprises in appeal No. C/628/2010 which was disposed of by the Bench vide Final Order No. A/31152/2016, dated 08.11.2016 and produces copy of the same.
(3) Appeal No. C/627/2010
5. Ld. DR reiterated the findings of the lower authorities.
6. On perusal of records, we find that Ld. Counsel was correct in his submissions that the items which were imported by the appellant were declared as multi function devices and also Chartered Engineer appointed for evaluation of the consignment opined so. If that be the case, since the imports of these multi function devices needs the import licence from 05.06.2012, we find that the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of S.S. Enterprises (cited herein above) would fully apply in this case. Following the same, we hold that the impugned order is unsustainable to the extent it is contested in this appeal i.e. the confiscation and penalty is set aside.
7. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and the impugned order is modified to that extent.
(Operative portion of the order pronounced in open court on conclusion of hearing) (P.VENKATA SUBBA RAO) (M.V. RAVINDRAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) vrg