9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... differential duty of Rs. 21,32,056/- alleging that the computers were being used by students and faculty members for preparing articles/projects which did not appear to be research work; the appellants were offering Post Graduate Level courses in microbiology, botany, biochemistry and that the students were not involved in research and research was not one of the objectives of the courses offered. The said SCN was confirmed by Commissioner of Customs vide Order-in-Original No. 21/2008-Customs adjudication dated 21.10.2008. Hence, this appeal. 2. The appellants contended that there is no dispute about the fact that the appellants had imported the subject goods claiming exemption under Notification No. 51/96-Customs on the basis of an Essen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner of Cus. New Delhi [2001 (133) ELT 613 (Tri. Del)] (iii) Maruthi Detective & Security Agency Vs. Commr. Of C.EX, Belgaum [2006 (3) STR 521 (Tri.Bang)]. 4. The appellants contended that as the goods were imported against invalid certificate, confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty is not justified. In view of the decision of CESTAT in the case of Viswanandha Institute of Tech. of Management Vs. Commr. Of Cus, ICD, New Delhi [2008 (231) ELT 65 (Tri. Del)] 5. The Departmental Representative has reiterated the findings of the Commissioner and has highlighted that whereas the strength of the students in the courses is only 75 were pre-requisite for availing the benefit of the Notification. In the instant case as the researc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been satisfied. No fraud was alleged. In fact, it is seen that no investigation is made and no statements are recorded. The Essentiality Certificate was not withdrawn by the authority who has issued it. Under these circumstances, demand notice for an extended period only on strength of a letter written by the university to the A.G., Audit party is not sustainable. We find that CESTAT in the case of Proview Electronics Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise cited supra has held that "we are of the view that the clearance of impugned goods was done properly on the basis of compliance of the prescribed conditions on the date of clearance and subsequent withdrawal of facility to issue Essentiality Certificate does not justified the demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
