9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0614-40615/2013 - Dated:- 5-12-2013 - Shri P.K. Das and Shri Mathew John, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri K.P. Muralidharan, Supdt. (AR) For the Respondent : Shri N. Viswanathan, Advocate JUDGEMENT Per P.K. Das; 1. Common issue involved in these applications and therefore both are taken up together for disposal. After hearing both sides at length, we find that appeals may be taken at the stay stage itself. Therefore, both the appeals are taken up after disposing the stay petitions. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent filed Bills of Entry for clearance of goods declared as "Used and Old Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines" of various ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Schedule 3 of the said Rules. 25. It could be gathered, from the Minutes of the twenty fourth meeting of the Technical Review Committee, held at New Delhi, on 16-11-2011, that there is no specific mention about the multifunction devices in the EXIM and therefore, the import of multifunction devices need to be placed in the same category, as photocoping machines. In fact, it had been decided, in the said meeting, to request the Directorate General of Foreign Trade to include multifunction devices in the restricted list, so that the Ministry of Environment and Forests could consider the applications for import of such devices, in the light of the conditions provided in the Basel Convention Technical Guidelines on Transboundar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s have already been released. We find that by the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order and directed the respondent to follow the procedures to get the goods examined in the presence of appropriate authorities. It is also seen that the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order following the direction of the Hon'ble High Court as stated above. 5. Ld. AR on behalf Revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal. He submits that Revenue had already filed writ appeal against the order of aforesaid order of Hon'ble High Court. He further submits that Commissioner (appeals) has no power to remand the matter. 6. After hearing the submissions of both sides, we find that the goods have already been released as per the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
