TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeal No. Appellants/Respondent OIA Passed by C/452/2008 M/s. New Copier Syndicate v. CC No. 18/2008 (H-II) Cus. dt. 30-4-2008 Commissioner (A), Hyderabad. C/453/2008 M/s. Raghvendra Xerox v. CC No. 19/2008 (H-II) Cus. dt. 25-4-2008 -do- C/454/2008 M/s. Miranda Services v. CC No. 20/2008 (H-II) Cus. dt. 30-4-2008 -do- C/455/2008 M/s. Miranda Services v. CC No. 21/2008 (H-II) Cus. dt. 30-4-2008 -do- C/431/2005 CC v. M/s. Ram Impex No. 1 2/2005 dt. 29-8-2005 Commissioner of Customs (A), Cochin. 2. The issue is common in all these appeals and hence, they are taken up toget ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd imposition of fine and penalty does not arise. In support of this plea, the appellants are relying on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CC, Bangalore v. Srikrishna Printer - 2008 (229) E.L.T. 170 (Kar.) wherein the revenue appeal on the very issue was rejected by the Karnataka High Court and the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of CC, Cochin v. Atual Commodities (P) Ltd. - 2006 (202) E.L.T. 392 (Ker.) holding that licence is required, was not accepted by the Karnataka High Court. 4. The learned consultant submits that Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CCE CC, Hyderabad v. M/s. Balaji Office Equipments in Civil Appeal No. 52/2005 dated 4-10-2005 have taken the same view as taken by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard to the assessment and valuation has changed after the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of M/s. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. (supra) by Civil Appeal No. 7179/2002 rendered on 23-4-2008 (sic) [25-4-2003] [2003 (157) E.L.T. A150 (S.C.)]. The present situation and the law is that the transaction value cannot be rejected in absence of better evidence placed by the revenue. The Apex Court has followed its earlier ruling rendered in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. (supra); Vadilal Dairy International Ltd. v. CC, Bombay - 2005 (180) E.L.T. 436 (S.C.); Tolin Rubbers Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Cochin - 2004 (163) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.), CC, Calcutta v. South India Television (P) Ltd. - 2007 (214) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) and unreported judgment of the Apex Court r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh would apply to the facts of the case. We are inclined to follow the ruling of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and that of the Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CC v. Srikrishna Printer (supra). Following the ratio of this judgment, we hold that the assessee are not required to obtain licence for importing second-hand photocopier machines during the relevant period, as they were capital goods and the EXIM. Policy did not provide for obtaining licence in respect of second-hand photocopier machines imported as capital goods. The fine and penalties imposed are set aside. The party s appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any. C/431/2005 - Commissioner of Customs (A), Cochin v. M/s. Ram ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
