9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (10) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y for their clearance which were passed by the Assistant Collector in January 1981, June 1981, July 1982 and August 1982 in the Bombay Custom House. The Assistant Collector of Customs allowed clearance of these consignments against Additional licences produced by the appellants which were valid for import of non OGL capital goods mentioned in Appendix 2 of Import Policy 1980-81. The Collector of Customs, Bombay, in exercise of his powers under Section 129D(2) of Customs Act, 1962 passed orders on 28-12-1982, 17-6-1983, and 17-7-1983 directing the Assistant Collector to file appeals before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) to pronounce upon the legality and propriety of the Assistant Collector s orders on the grounds that staplers are not p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat in the above mentioned cases the one year period had expired even before 11-10-1982, and the longer period of two years for review under 129D(2) cannot be invoked to revive those cases where the limitation has already expired. 4. The Collector (Appeals) has however, held that the criterion is the date on which the Collector has issued the direction for review, which, in all these cases is after Section 129D had come into effect, according to which the Collector had two years time limit from the date of order/decision for applying for review. He has accordingly concluded that the appeals are not hit by limitation. 5. On examining these contentions, we find that issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port under Serial No. 65, Appendix 4 of Import Policy, 1980-81. The Collector (Appeals) has found that the Max stapler are classifiable under the Customs Tariff Act as office machine under Heading 84.51/51(1) and are not packing machines which are covered under Heading 84.19 CTA. It has also been held that stapling machines are specifically covered by Heading 84.51/55(1). However, the appellants have relied upon the order-in-appeal passed by Central Board of Excise and Customs dated 14-10-1980. They have further relied on the Madras High Court Division Bench judgment in the case of Union of India v. Raj s Continental Exports. The Collector (Appeals) in his order has distinguished the Madras High Court judgment, by observing that it related ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his view of the matter the Board held that the benefit of doubt for according the treatment provided for capital goods must go to the staplers imported. This order of the Board has also been accepted by the Collector as a sound decision and this order of the Board had also not been challenged and was valid and subsisting at the material time. Apart from this, the judgment of the Madras High Court, though pertaining to Customs classification, had been given after a perusal of the catalogue relating to the Max staplers which inter alia indicated use of the staplers for packaging use at home and in industries. The other contention in this regard is that the goods cannot be allowed clearance against licences produced as the appellants are trade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
