9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner of Customs being aggrieved by the Order dated 21st December 2005, passed in Appeal No.700/04NB(S) by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CESTAT"). The questions of law involved can be gainfully reproduced as follows: "(a) Whether CESTAT was correct in holding that the violation in the case was purely technical and therefore order in appeal dated 9th September 2004 is 2 Customs Appeal No.58 of 2006 liable to be quashed and set aside and thereupon setting aside order in appeal with consequential relief. (b) Whether Respondent contravened provisions of Section 11 of Customs Act read with Trade and Merchandise Mark Act, 1958 by giving deceptive markings on the goods for hid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence the Respondents have contravened the provisions of Section 111 of the Customs Act and hence the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 11(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and also imposed penalty on the Respondents under Section 112(a) of the said Act. 3. Aggrieved by the said order in original, the Respondent filed an Appeal. The Appellate Authority on the self same ground as mentioned in the order in original, confirmed the order of the adjudication authority and dismissed the Appeal. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the Appeal, the Respondents have filed a further Appeal before the CESTAT which came to be allowed by the CESTAT and the order passed by the adjudicating authority a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ersonal use of individuals or members of unincorporated associations and not for trade purposes. (e) goods made or produced beyond the limits of India and imported into India, not for trade purposes other than for reexport." 5. It is undisputed that the Respondent herein against the decision of the First Appellate Authority had filed the Appeal before the CESTAT on the ground that in view of the exemption and especially clause (e) thereof they were exempted from the application of mentioning the country of origin.Though it is required to be stated that before the adjudicating authority as well as the First Appellate Authority, the Respondent had sought to justify that the mentioning of the country of origin as China, satisfied the requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and would, therefore, qualify for exemption under clauses (d) and (e) of the said exemption clause. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant would contend that in terms of clause (d) the members of unincorporated associations are entitled for exemption so also under clause (e) the goods made or produced beyond the limits of India and imported into India not for trade purposes other than for reexport, are entitled to exempted. It is pertinent to note that the CESTAT on an 7 Customs Appeal No.58 of 2006 interpretation of the exemption clause and especially by adverting to clause (e) of the exemption clause came to a conclusion that the Respondent was exempted from complying with the provisions of section 117 of the Trade and Merchandise Act. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
