9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Declaration filed by the assessee is bonafide under the head 49.01 and cannot be said as mis-declaration of goods - Decision made in the case of Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi v. Gujarat Perstorp Electronics Ltd. [2005 (8) TMI 657 - Supreme Court of India] followed - Appeal dismissed in favour of assessee. - Civil Appeal No. 2441 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 6-10-2015 - A. K. Sikri And Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ. For the Appellants : Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, Sr. Adv., Mr Rupesh Kumar, Mr Arijit Prasad, Mr Jitin Singhal, Mr B Krishna Prasad, Advs For the Respondents : Mr Harish Salve, Sr. Adv., Mr S K Bagaria, Sr. Adv., Mr K R Sasiprabhu, Mr Rohan Shah, Mr Vipin Jain, Mr Alok Yadav, Mr Jaideep Patel, Mr Vishnu Sharma, Mr Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'). The Tribunal has, vide the impugned order dated 06.09.2006, decided the issue in favour of the respondent herein both on merits as well as on limitation thereby holding that the show cause notice was beyond the period of limitation and since there was no mis -declaration, extended period of limitation was not available to the Department. It is this order which is challenged by the Revenue in the present appeal. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that this appeal is liable to be dismissed only on the ground of limitation as decided by the CESTAT as we are of the considered opinion that it was a case where the extended period of limitation provided unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d then that the imported articles were classifiable under the prevailing Tariff Item 49.01. On a reference to the Larger Bench, in August 2000, in the case of Parsrampuria Synthetics Ltd. v/s. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi reported in 2000 (38) RLT 846 also upheld the ratio in these decisions by holding that the expression 'printed books 'covered' printed material containing technical knowledge, drawings, designs, plans etc.' As such the view taken earlier in Roto Inks case got reaffirmed by the Larger Bench. This judgment of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal ran a further course through the Supreme Court which upset that decision of the CEGAT on 30.8.2001 [2001 (133) ELT 9 SC]. The correctness of this judgment of the Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
