2006 (3) TMI 516

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ties appeals and Revenue's appeals in this order. 2. The appellants mentioned in the Table above Sl. Nos. 1 to 3, imported Second-Hand Photocopiers. Since the declared value was not acceptable to the Department, proceedings were initiated against the appellants. The appellants engaged Chartered Engineers. The Chartered Engineers certified the values of the imported goods after inspection. In fact, two Chartered Engineers were engaged. The first one is M/s. SGS India Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad. The second Chartered Engineer is M/s. Moody International (India) Pvt. Ltd. The original authority rejected the values certified by M/s. SGS on the ground that in the note to the Report furnished by them, it was stated that no guarantee is given with .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... value. In respect of the Certificate issued by M/s. Moody International (India) Pvt. Ltd., the original authority has not given any proper reason but, relied on Supreme Court s decision in the case of Gajra Bevel Gears v. CC, Bombay - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 612 (SC). Further, the Advocate submitted that in the light of the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of AtuI Commodities (P) Ltd. v. CC, Cochin Hyderabad - 2005 (184) E.L.T. 135 (Tri.-LB), the second-hand photocopiers do not require any licence during the relevant period. He said that this decision was challenged by the Revenue in the Andhra Pradesh High Court and Revenue s appeal has been dismissed. 5. The learned SDR reiterated the impugned order and also the Grounds of Appeal. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... i. - LB) = 2005-TIOL-47-CESTAT-DEL-LB 6695. Revenue is aggrieved over the above decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that used photocopiers are restricted in terms of para 2.17 of EXIM Policy 2002-2007 and the same is reiterated by DGFT in unequivocal terms vide their Policy Circular No. 19/2003. Further, Revenue relied on the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. Venkatesh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs, Trichy - Final Order No. 264/2005, dated 1-3-2005 [2005 (192) E.L.T. 818 (Tri.)]. We find that in the case of AtuI Commodities v. CCE Cochin Hyderabad (cited supra), the Larger Bench has gone through the issue in depth after analysing the policy Circulars and various decisions and held that Second-hand Photocopi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X