9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1047X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer for considering all the materials and passing orders afresh, on merits and in accordance with law, after providing due opportunity of hearing to the appellant, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment - appeal allowed by way of remand. - C.M.A.Nos.81 and 83 of 2022 And CMP.Nos.546 and 551 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 24-3-2022 - THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD For Appellant : Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan For Respondent : Mrs. Hema Muralikrishnan JUDGMENT R. MAHADEVAN, J. Assailing the orders dated 06.02.2020 and 14.12.2021 in Customs Appeal No.41027 of 2019, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2021. 3.Aggrieved against the orders dated 06.02.2020 and 14.12.2021 so passed by the CESTAT, the present two appeals came to be filed, formulating the following substantial questions of law for consideration of this court. CMA.No.81 of 2022: (i) Whether the Tribunal has failed to exercise jurisdiction as a final fact - finding body by not giving any finding on the various legal submissions and case laws relied upon by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal filed before the Tribunal. (ii) Whether the Tribunal has erred in stating that appellant themselves had classified the subject goods under Customs Tariff Heading 8252 8090 in the Bill of Entry, when it is evident from the order - in - original dated 29.06.2018, tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce)? (iv) Whether the Tribunal has erred in coming to the conclusion that the bills of entry of other importers relied upon by the appellant were not relevant since there were differences as regards the description of the imported goods? (v) Whether the Tribunal has erred by not following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Vishal Electronics Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India - 1993 (68) ELT 557 (Bom)? 4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant all along stated that CCTV cameras are classified under CTH 8525 8010 as television cameras; and in support of the same, they produced a copy of the bill of entry no.4232142 dated 01.12.2017 filed by M/s.Honeywell Internation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vishal Electronics Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India [1993 (68) ELT 557 (Bom)], wherein, the issue involved was as to the rate of duty applicable to lens for closed circuit television camera falling under tariff item 90.02; and it was held that lens imported for closed circuit television camera had to be assessed at the rate as applicable to television camera. With these averments, the learned counsel prayed to allow this appeal by setting aside the order passed by the CESTAT. 5.Per contra, the learned senior panel counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that after analysing the entire materials placed before it, the CESTAT has concluded that the CCTV cameras cannot be classified under the category of 'television cameras', but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ff heading 'television camera' and in the classification of CTH 8525 8010. The said classification of CCTV cameras under CTH 8525 8010 was accepted by the Customs, New Delhi and the benefit of notification no.152/2009 was extended to the appellant, as evident from the bill of entry no.6450438 dated 19.05.2018; and the bill of entry no.4232142 dated 01.12.2017 filed by M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd classifying the similar goods under CTH 8525 8010, was taken into consideration. 10.On the other hand, the learned senior panel counsel appearing for the respondent drew the attention of this court to the order impugned herein and pointed out that there is no entry specifically for CCTV cameras in the HSN note and the custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
