Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Commissioner Of Customs ... vs M/S.Deepak Enterprises

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal9 July 2015

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal's reasoning rests on the following: where the High Court has decided the same question for imports made before a specified date, following that decision is binding, and the Revenue's appeal on the identical point must fail while the assessee's appeal succeeds; the restriction on import of second-hand digital multifunction photocopying machines did not apply to imports made before 5th June 2012, as held by the Madras High Court, and the Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines were not in the restricted category at the relevant time, having been identified as such in the Technical Review Committee minutes that the High Court relied upon.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALSOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAIC/00567/2009

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.C.Cus. No.1147/2009, dated 17.09.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai]

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [PORT-IMPORTS], CHENNAI APPELLANT

Versus

M/s.DEEPAK ENTERPRISES RESPONDENT

C/00012/2010

M/s.DEEPAK ENTERPRISES APPELLANT

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [PORT-IMPORTS], CHENNAI RESPONDENT

Appearance:

For the Assessee Shri A.K. Jayaraj, Adv.

For the Revenue Shri L. Paneerselvan, AC (AR)

CORAM:

Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member

Date of hearing/decision 09-07-2015

FINAL ORDER NOs. 40761-40762 / 2015

Learned counsel in appeal no.C/00012/2010 submits that the dispute in relation to Second-hand Digital Multifunction Photocopying Machines having been decided by Honble High Court of Madras in a batch of Writ Petition Nos.21732 and Ors., by order dated 27.02.2012 holding that the restriction was not there in respect of the imports made prior to 5th June, 2012, the appeal is to be allowed. He cites para 24 of the Judgment in his defence, which reads as under:-

24. It could be gathered, from the Minutes of the twenty fourth meeting of the Technical Review Committee, held at New Delhi, on 16.11.2011, that there is no specific mention about the multifunction devices in the EXIM and therefore, the import of multifunction devices need to be placed in the same category, as photocopying machines. In fact, it had been decided, in the said meeting, to request the Directorate General of Foreign Trade to include multifunction devices in the restricted list, so that the Ministry of Environment and Forests could consider the applications for import of such devices, in the light of the conditions provided in the Basel Convention Technical Guidelines on Transboundary Movements of Electronic and Electrical Waste after getting the necessary opinion from the Expert Committee. Thus, it is clear that the Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines are not in the restricted category, at present.

2. In view of the decision of the Honble High Court of Madras to the above extent appeal of the assessee in C/00012/2010 is allowed and the Revenue appeal on the same point in appeal no.C/00567/2009 is dismissed.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

ksr 12-07-2015

DRAFT Remarks

I II III

Date of dictation 09.07.2015

Draft Order - Date of typing

Fair Order Typing 12.07.2015

Date of number and date of dispatch

,4 C/00567/2009, C/00012/2010

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free