9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss of import and trading of second hand Digital Multifunction Printing and Copying Machines and second hand Photocopier Machines and its accessories, parts and consumables. The appellant imported a consignment comprising of 102 units of old & used Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines of various models and 04 Nos. of old & used indirect process Analog Photocopiers from the overseas supplier viz., M/s Reuhl Printing Solutions, Gmbh, Germany under their Invoice No. 902242 dated 12.2.2009 for a total CIF value of Rs. 14,89,631.66 and filed Bill of Entry No. 242652 dated 24.3.2009 with the assessment group at Customs House, Cochin. The Department in terms of Customs Circular No. 4/2008 dated 06.2.2008 ordered the first check 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... copying documents and no original prints can be created there-from. On the other hand, Digital Multifunction Machines imported by the appellants have multifunction facilities. The user of photocopying is one of incidental use of such machines and their main job is to take out original prints sent through e-mail using a computer, facsimile, etc. The learned counsel also submitted that until 2007, photocopiers were undisputedly classified under Chapter Heading 9009 of Customs Tariff and during this period, multifunctional digital machines were held by different Benches of the Tribunal to be classifiable under Chapter Sub-heading 847160 of the Customs Tariff. He further submitted that multifunctional machines like the machines involved in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Customs, Kolkatta, that as per the advise of Ministry of Law and Justice, the Government of India have decided to accept the judgment of the Madras High Court and not to file any SLP before the Apex Court. This means that the Government of India itself have accepted the view taken by the Madras High Court, upholding the view taken by the Tribunal in the impugned orders herein. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to entertain these appeals. Appeals are accordingly dismissed." The learned counsel also submitted that in view of the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court, this appeal should be allowed and the impugned order imposing redemption fine and penalty should be set aside. 5. On the other hand, the learned A.R. fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
