2010 (9) TMI 252 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - appeals were filed without the opinion and authorization of Committee of Commissioners of Customs which are contrary to provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 - machines were second hand machines, value of which could not be compared with the new machines - Held that - goods were capital goods import of which was valid as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Atul Commodities Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin, 2009 - identical matters have been decided against the revenue by order dated 9.9.2010 in CUSAP No. 24 of 2010 - Appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Substantial question of law regarding the necessity of opinion and authorization of Committee of Commissioners of Customs for filing appeals.
3. Comparison of second-hand machines with new machines and validity of import of capital goods.
4. Reference to a similar case decided against the revenue.

Analysis:
1. The judgment by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana pertains to the disposal of CUSAP Nos. 21 to 23 of 2010, which involve a common question arising from the appeal against the final order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. The substantial question of law raised in CUSAP No. 21 of 2010 was whether the appeals filed without the opinion and authorization of the Committee of Commissioners of Customs, as required under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, were maintainable. The contention was that the appeals were dismissed for lacking the committee's opinion, despite the presence of the opinion in the file notings and the appeal being filed under the signature of a Commissioner who was a committee member.
3. The counsel for the assessee argued that the question was not substantial, citing findings that the machines in question were second-hand and their value could not be compared to new machines. It was also noted that the goods were capital goods, the import of which was deemed valid based on a precedent set by the Supreme Court in a previous case. Additionally, a similar matter had been decided against the revenue in another case, further supporting the dismissal of the appeals.
4. The court acknowledged the arguments presented by the counsel for the assessee and found that the position regarding the comparison of second-hand machines, the validity of capital goods import, and the precedent set by a previous case was not disputed by the revenue. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed based on the presented facts and legal precedents.