2015 (10) TMI 655 - HC - Central Excise

whether second-hand photocopying machines imported by the appellants should be treated as capital goods which were freely importable at the relevant time or as consumer goods which required specific import license - High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Revenue that neither the appellant nor its counsel is present and this clearly shows that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the matter and therefore, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The appeal was filed against the decision of Tribunal 2006 (6) TMI 400 - CESTAT, CHENNAI ; wherein tribunal held that quantum of fine should not exceed 15% of the value of the goods in a case of this nature and the quantum of penalty should be around 10% of the fine. In taking this view, I have also considered the fact that, at the time of the import in question, it was widely held in legal circles that second-hand photocopying machines were capital goods, which trend appears to have been reversed with the Kerala High Court s decision 2006 (4) TMI 140 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA .

Summary

The High Court of Madras dismissed the appeal and connected petition due to the absence of the appellant and their counsel, indicating lack of interest in pursuing the matter. (2015 (10) TMI 655 - MADRAS HIGH COURT)