TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Shri R. Srinivasan, Consultant, for the Appellant. Smt. R. Bhagya Devi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - After examining the records and hearing both sides, we are of the view that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dispensing with pre-deposit, we take up the appeal. 2. The appeal is against the following order of the Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Seaport, Chennai :- (a) I reject the declared classification of the goods "48F Optical Fibre Cables" imported vide Bills of Entry Nos. 331766 dated 7-11-2006 and 332377, dated 8-11-2006, made under CTH 8544 70 90 and deny the benefit of Notification No. 24/2005-Cus., dated 1-3-2005. I orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds, with a redemption fine of Rs. 20 lakhs under Section 125 of the Act. It also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the importer under Section 112 of the Act. In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner followed Advance Ruling No. AAR/14-27 (Cus.)/2006 dated 28-2-2006 [2006 (197) E.L.T 176 (A.A.R.)] of the Advance Ruling Authority, Customs and Central Excise, in M/s. Alcatel's case. That ruling was for identical goods which was intended to be imported by M/s. Alcatel. The authority classified the goods under CTH 9001 10. The learned Commissioner also relied on the opinion of the Department of Information Technology, which was given in M/s. Alcatel's case and considered by the Advance Ruling Authority. On the whole, the decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibres." It is submitted by the consultant that the appellant had made an attempt for such demonstration before the Commissioner but the same was not appreciated. It is also contended that, in the nature of this case, the learned Commissioner ought to have refrained from confiscating the goods and imposing penalty. We have heard the learned SDR also, who has reiterated the findings of Commissioner and has also submitted that the advance ruling in M/s. Alcatel's case has at least persuasive effect. 5. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, we are constrained to remand the case to the adjudicating authority. As we have already indicated, nothing contained in the Advance Ruling Authority's order in M/s. Alcatel's case shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
