9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also the following judgment of the City Office Equipments Vs. The Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Import) [2014 (11) TMI 325 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. - writ petition and the pending application are disposed of. - W.P.(C) 2512/2014 and CM No.5213/2014 - - - Dated:- 2-2-2015 - MR. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. For the Appellant : Mr. Bhagabati Prasad Padhy, Advocate For the Respondent :Ms. Sonia Sharma, Sr. Standing Counsel, Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC with Mr. Ajay Kalra, Advocate ORDER 1. The limited grievance of the petitioner is that, its goods are not being cleared, based on an erroneous view of the respondents that they are in the nature of E-waste and thus qualify as hazardous waste. The grievance is set forth in the backgrou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermission for import of the aforementioned machines. 5. The petitioner in this behalf claims that the machines which are being imported are not hazardous waste, as defined under the provisions of Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Trans-boundary Movement) Rules, 2008 (hereafter referred to as 2008 Rules). 5.1 It is the petitioner s case that the machines are not hazardous waste, since, they are not cannibalized, and instead, are complete machines, which are required for re-use. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the following judgment of the Madras High Court, dated 05.06.2013, passed in a batch of writ petitions, the lead petition being: WP (C) 1439/2013, titled : Shrishti Digi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice dated 24.04.2014, has been issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. There is no dispute that the petitioner has filed its reply to the said show cause notice. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is, in substance, no change in the policy. According to him, the machines i.e., the goods in issue, fell as per the earlier import policy in the restricted category, and that, even after the amendment made to the policy have continued to fall in the restricted category. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the judgment, in the case of Shrishti Digital Solution, would be applicable to the facts of this case. 10.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
