2008 (10) TMI 514 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of machines as Automatic Teller Machines (ATMs) for Notification No. 25/2005-Cus.
2. Penalty imposition on the appellants.

Issue 1: Classification of machines as ATMs for Notification No. 25/2005-Cus:

The appellants filed applications seeking rectification of apparent errors in Final Order Nos. 505-509/2008, where the classification of 'P77' and 'P75' machines as ATMs was in question. The Tribunal classified the 'P75' machine as an ATM, granting benefits, while the 'P77' machine was not accepted as an ATM, denying benefits to the assessee. The appellants re-agitated the 'P77' machine issue, claiming apparent errors, but the Tribunal found no errors in the original order. The Tribunal held that re-agitating the issue was impermissible under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act.

Issue 2: Penalty imposition on the appellants:

The appellants contended that the final order was silent on the penalty issue and argued that any penalty imposed on them was unreasonable and unjust. They referenced a previous decision where a penalty was not imposed in a similar classification dispute. The Tribunal acknowledged that the final order did not address the penalty issue specifically. The dispute involved interpretations of Tariff entries, HSN Explanatory Notes, and technical literature, indicating an interpretative nature. Considering this, the Tribunal found it unreasonable to sustain the penalties imposed on the appellants by the Commissioner. Therefore, the Tribunal amended the final order to vacate the penalties, stating that it was unfair to impose them given the interpretative nature of the issue.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai addressed the issues of machine classification as ATMs and penalty imposition in a detailed and thorough manner. The Tribunal upheld the classification of the 'P75' machine as an ATM, denied re-agitation of the 'P77' machine issue, and vacated the penalties imposed on the appellants due to the interpretative nature of the dispute. The judgment provided clarity on the legal aspects involved, ensuring a fair and just outcome for the parties involved.