9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. This appeal has been filed by Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. 01/2005 dated 29-8-2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Cochin. 2. The respondents imported 108 pes. of Second Hand Photocopying Machines. Revenue proceeded against the importers on the ground that in terms of Para 2.17 of the EXIM Policy, the goods being restric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -LB). In terms of the above said decision, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that there is no contravention of EXIM Policy. Therefore, he set aside the confiscation and imposition of fine and penalty. 3. Revenue is aggrieved over the impugned order on the following grounds :- (i) The Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on the Larger Bench decision. The Larger Bench had interpreted the provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al interpreter of policy and any clarification on the matter of policy is final and binding on all. (v) The learned JCDR further pointed out that the Kerala High Court has overruled Atul Commodities decision as reported in 2006 (202) E.L.T. 392 (Ker.). In view of the above, he said that the Revenue appeal has to be allowed. 4. Shri A.K. Jayaraj, the learned Advocate appearing for the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed order of CESTAT, Kolkata relied on the Larger Bench s decision in Atul Commodities case. Further, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has also rejected the appeal filed by Revenue in the case of CCE C, Hyderabad-II v. M/s. Balaji Office Equipments in CEA No. 52/2005. Thus, we have two High Court decisions affirming Atul Commodities s case. Therefore, we are inclined to follow the decisions of the two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
