9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... WT LST-280-R in complete set (cellular phone). Therefore, we do not find from the records that the act of the assessee is a deliberate act to avoid payment of CVD. As the act of the assessee is not deliberate and they have paid duty along with interest, therefore we do not find any reasons to impose penalty on them - Following decision of Northern Plastic [1998 (7) TMI 91 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Decided in favour of assessee. - C/51/2011 and C/278 and 410/2010 - A/353-355/2012-WZB/C-I(CSTB) - Dated:- 12-4-2012 - S/Shri Ashok Jindal, P.R. Chandrasekharan, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Naresh Thacker and J.H. Motwani, Advocates, for the Assessee. Shri V.K. Singh, Addl. Commissioner (AR), for the Department. [Order per : Ashok ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnal device i.e. a telephone is required to be attached to function it as telephone. The goods are thus Fixed Wireless Terminals and not Free Wireless telephones. The imported goods are at the best an Antenna and not a telephone. It is a transmission apparatus incorporating reception apparatus and hence merits classification under CTH 8517 70 90. It is a part of an entire Free Wireless Telephone system. The CTH 8517 12 10 covers telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks - push button type. Since the imported items were not telephone instruments and only parts of entire wireless telephony system, the said goods were not classifiable under CTH 8517 12 10. Parts of telephone including cellular networks, transmission a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... department, there was no requirement to issue show cause notice in terms of Section 78(2)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. He also relies on the decision in the case of Northern Plastic 1998 (101) E.L.T. 549 (S.C.) and Jay Yuhshin Ltd. v. CCE - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 718 (LB). Finally he claimed that the penalty in the matters in hand is not imposable on the assessee. 7. Shri V.K. Singh, AR strongly opposes the contention of the advocate and submitted that as the assessee being a reputed and qualified person in the industry they were knowing what product they are importing and to avoid payment of CVD they classified the goods under 8517 12 10/8525 20 17 8525 20 19. He further submitted that the assessee has deliberately misdeclared the goods by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
