Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2017 (8) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2017 (8) TMI 430 - AT - Customs


Issues:
Appeals against Order-in-Appeals passed by Commissioner of Customs upheld by Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore.

Analysis:
The appeals involved a common issue where different appellants challenged the Order-in-Appeals passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Cochin. The appeals were related to the classification of imported goods, specifically old and used Digital Multifunctional Print & Copier Machines. The appellants imported machines capable of performing multiple functions like scanning, printing, faxing, and emailing. The dispute arose regarding the classification of these machines under the Customs Tariff. The appellants argued that these multifunction machines should not be classified as photocopier machines due to their additional functionalities beyond mere photocopying.

The appellants' contention was supported by the findings of a Chartered Engineer, confirming the multifunction capabilities of the imported machines. The appellants requested the release of goods without adjudication due to urgent need, but the Additional Commissioner imposed exorbitant redemption fine and penalty. Subsequently, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala allowed the release of goods upon furnishing a bank guarantee and bond. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original with modifications, leading to the present appeals before the Tribunal.

The appellants argued that the impugned orders were erroneous and contrary to law, citing judgments by higher judicial fora. They highlighted that multifunctional digital machines were previously classified differently from traditional photocopiers. Reference was made to a previous case decided by the Tribunal, which set aside penalties on similar machines.

On the other hand, the Revenue contended that there was no distinction between Digital Multifunction Print and Copier Machines and traditional photocopiers. They cited cases where different views were taken by the Tribunal benches regarding the classification of similar machines.

After considering the submissions and case laws presented by both parties, the Judicial Member of the Tribunal analyzed the issue. The Judicial Member noted that the decision in a previous case involving identical issues was upheld by the jurisdictional High Court of Kerala. Therefore, the imposition of redemption fines and penalties on the appellants concerning the Digital Multifunction Machines was deemed unsustainable in law, leading to the setting aside of such penalties.

However, in appeals involving 'analog photocopiers,' no findings were in favor of the appellants. The appellants were directed to pay specified redemption fines and penalties within a specified timeframe. The Tribunal disposed of all appeals accordingly, providing a detailed analysis and resolution for each issue raised.

The judgment was pronounced in open court on 18/7/2017 by the Judicial Member of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates