9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y invoice No. 1009011 dated 8-11-2001 of the aforesaid suppliers of goods. The appellant imported the said monitors under the bona fide belief that the second-hand computer monitors falls under the definition of capital goods and further are permitted for import freely if they are less than 10 years old, as per the import policy and therefore there was no need for an import licence. However the Customs authorities took the view that as per EXIM Policy 1997-2002, the second-hand goods imported are consumer goods and are restricted items requiring licence for imports. The goods were examined on first appraisement basis and the value of the goods was apprised at Rs. 600/- per monitor and the goods were not released. Since the appellant had to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is before us. 3.Notice was issued and respondents entered appearance. 4.At the time of admission, respondent contended that the appeal is to be filed at Hyderabad and not at Bangalore on the ground that the appellant is situated in Hyderabad and it comes within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad, and that just because the South Zonal Bench has decided the matter, assessee cannot file this appeal in this court. He would strongly rely on 2006 (194) E.L.T. 264 a judgment of the Delhi High Court. 5.On the other hand, learned Counsel for the assessee would say that this court is not helpless in considering the case of the assessee. According to him, the matter has been decided by a Bench having its Head Quarters at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wherein it was considering with regard to territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court in the matter of considering the appeal. In the said case the Delhi High Court ruled at para 13 as under : "13.The present case arises out of the State of Bombay. The petitioner may have its factory establishment at Panipat in the State of Haryana but that is irrelevant. The adjudicating authority is at Bombay. Obviously it is bound by the law laid down under the provisions of the Customs Act or any other law as interpreted by the High Court of Bombay. For the purpose of the case at hand, the petitioner must be held bound by the law as applicable and as prevailing in the State of Maharashtra whereat the goods were to be imported and whereat the proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reference under Sec. 35G was not maintainable in this court, there is no reason why an appeal under the said provision after its amendment can be said to be maintainable. On the reasoning adopted by this amendment can be said to be so maintainable. On the reasoning adopted by this court in Technological Institute of Textile's case (supra), an appeal under Sec. 35G must also be filed only in the High Court who has jurisdiction over the authority from whose order the proceedings have originated. The fact that the main seat of the CESTAT is situated in Delhi or that the appeal was heard and decided at Delhi would not mean that all appeals arising from cases so decided regardless from which State the case has originated can be maintained in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
