9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. The appellants imported second-hand Photocopiers, without import licence, and filed a Bill of Entry dated 20-5-2005 for clearance of the machines. Ld. Commissioner of Customs confiscated the goods for want of licence and imposed a penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs on the importer under Section 112 of the Customs Act. He also enhanced the value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an appeal from the Larger Bench decision was dismissed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court on the ground that no question of law had arisen in such appeal. We have perused the High Court s order dated 4-10-2005 in CE Appeal No. 52/2005. It would appear from this order that the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal s Larger Bench in the case of Atul Commodities (supra) stood affirmed. Ld. Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication of the Central Government, issued by the DGFT, is clear enough to show that the second-hand Photocopying machines are capital goods, we need not look back to the old circulars of DGFT. The position is doubly clear from the Tribunal s Larger Bench decision as affirmed by the High Court. It is not in dispute that second-hand capital goods required no licence for import on the date of filing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
