9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of duty concession in terms of Notification No. 16/2000 dated 1-3-2000. The importer M/s. Wipro GE Medical Systems got the matter settled before the Settlement Commission. The appellants have now filed an appeal against the imposition of penalty for various allegations made against them in assisting the importer in clearing the goods by wrongly availing the benefit of Notification. On the same set of facts in respect of the same goods imported by M/s. Wipro GE Medical Systems, a Show Cause Notice had been issued by the DRI, Mumbai. The same officer had given both the Show Cause Notices. The Show Cause Notice issued by the Mumbai DRI was adjudicated and that matter was taken up in appeal before the Tribunal, Mumbai. The Tribunal, after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s reproduced herein below. The case in brief is that M/s. Wipro GE Medical Systems, Bangalore (herein after referred to as WGEMS) imported Computerized Tomography Scanners Model E (hereinafter referred to as CT/e ) mis-declaring them as parts and fraudulently availed the benefit of concessional rate of duty applicable to parts for manufacture of CT/e in terms of Notification No. 16/2000 dated 1-3-2000. Duty demand was raised on the goods imported at Mumbai as well as at Bangalore and notice also proposed imposition of penalty in addition to the proposal for confiscation of the goods. The notice also proposed imposition of penalty on the appellants herein, who are CHA of the importers and employee of the CHA respectively on the ground t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y settled in their favour, penalty imposed on co-noticee does not arise [The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Onkar S. Kanwar - 2002 (145) E.L.T. 266 (S.C.) has held that settlement by main declarant under the scheme operates as full and final settlement in respect of other persons on whom show cause notice issued in respect of the same]. The other submission made by the appellants is that in the case of the importers, the Tribunal vide its order reported in 1999 (106) E.L.T. 169 hold that although by applying legal fiction of Interpretative Rule 2(a), import by M/s. WGEMS of CAT Scan in CKD SKD condition was to be treated as import of complete system, but for all practical purposes it is an importation of components/parts t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the earlier order are in any way different from the goods imported in the present case. The Tribunal s decision has been upheld by the Supreme Court as seen from the order reported in 2000 (111) E.L.T. A54 (S.C.). Therefore, the Ld. counsel is correct in his submission that M/s WGEMS itself cannot be held guilty for mis-declaration so as to hold that appellants herein have aided and abetted the importer. This being so, we set aside the penal action on these appellants and allow the appeals. However, we refrain from passing any order on action to be taken against CHA in terms of CHALR 1984 as this is not the subject matter of the appeals. 5. Respectfully following the ratio of the Tribunal s ruling in the above cited case, the impos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
