TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rities lack jurisdiction - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal No. 528 of 2009 - Final Order No. 20158/2022 - Dated:- 31-3-2022 - SHRI P. ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER AND SHRI P. DINESHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Kiran S Javali, Senior Advocate for the Appellant Shri P. Gopakumar, Additional Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The appellant is a 100% EOU, is issued with a Private Bonded Warehouse Licence within the meaning of Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant was also permitted to import Telematic Infrastructural Equipments duty free for being used for the export of software outside India in terms of Notification 153/93-Cus. dated 13/08/1993, as amended. The appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant filed a detailed reply justifying its claim for exemption and further claiming that the appellant was also entitled to import computer software and tools, kits and spares and hence nomenclature would not matter as long as the import is of the eligible items only. They had also contended that what was actually imported by them was computer furniture which was erroneously classified as Office Furniture by the very Bond Officer himself and in any case they had imported only the capital goods which they were authorized to import and hence, there is no question of liability to any duty. 5. The adjudicating authority however not satisfied with the explanation/reply proceeded to pass the adjudication order dated 22/07/2008 wherein he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee import. He would further submit that the appellant is a 100% EOU and any violation could only be handled by the Development Commissioner alone and hence the Assistant Commissioner of Customs has no jurisdiction to assume jurisdiction over the unit. He would rely on the CBEC instruction issued vide Circular No. 21/95-Cus. dated 10/03/1995 and Circular No. 122/95-Cus. dated 28/11/95. Moreover, he would also submit that as observed in the show-cause notice itself, the appellant has already executed a bond worth ₹ 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) which would cover the value of the goods imported and further submits that in any case the appellant had placed order for import of computer furniture and imported computer furniture only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
