9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 783X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... details of which are contained in the Annexure to this order] and proceed to decide the appeal at this stage with the consent of both sides as the grievance of the importers is of non-implementation of Tribunal s Final Order No. 507 to 560/2007 dated 30-4-2007 [2007 (216) E.L.T. 258 (Tribunal)]. 2. The benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 as per Sl. No. 215 of the Table annexed thereto read with Sl. No. 7 of List No. 31 appended thereto has been denied to importers of machines declared as computerized embroidery pattern making machine with plotter (Tajima Brand) on the ground that the imported items did not contain plotter and the goods have been confiscated. Demands of duty have been confirmed and penalties have als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Machine Tools Institute, Bangalore or TECSOK or other competent Government agency and to obtain their report . The cases were decided afresh by the order under challenge in the present appeals, by once again holding that the imported goods were computerized embroidery machines without plotter, relying upon the reports of the Textile Commissioner, Coimbatore and confirming the earlier orders passed by the adjudicating authorities who had confirmed demands by denying the benefit of the Notification and confiscated the machines and imposed penalty. 4. The grievance of the importers/indenting agents is that the Tribunal s direction for inspection of the machines in operation by the authorities at the places where the machines are lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir defence. 6. As regards the CHA, M/s. Adarsh Shipping and Services, although they challenge the penalty imposed upon them under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 for aiding and abetting the importers on the ground that penalty on the importer was set aside by the adjudicating authority in the first round of litigation but affirmed in the impugned order challenged by the CHA, we cannot accept the prayer of the CHA for setting aside of the penalty as Revenue is also in appeal against the same impugned order. The appeal of the CHA is also therefore allowed by way of remand. 7. As regards the Revenue s appeals wherein the prayer is for imposition of penalties specifically on the importers/indenting agents, CHA, since the main issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
