9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Joint Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 30.03.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are importers and traders of IT products. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er-in-Original, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner who rejected the same. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the facts and the law. She further submitted that the appellant has imported paper licences which are documents of title conveying the ri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has imported and cleared paper licences under CTH 4907 during the subsequent period and the same has not been disputed by the Revenue. She also submitted that the goods must be assessed in the form in which it is imported and the appellant had only imported paper licence without the media containing the software or the hardware. For this submission, she has relied upon the following decisions: a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther we find that this identical issue has been decided in favour of the importer by the Chennai Bench in the case of Ingram Micro India Ltd. cited supra and subsequently also the appellant imported the paper licence under CTH 4907 and the same was not disputed by the Department. In view of our discussion above, we find that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and therefore we set aside t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
