UNITED TELECOM LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge, who set aside the order passed by the Tribunal waiving the pre-deposit in preferring the appeal filed challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals.

(2.) The Appellant is a public limited company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, with the object of carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of telephone equipments and other allied objects. During the period September 2003 and December 2003, the Appellant imported certain consignment of parts/components and accessories of cellular phone, hand sets, which were exempted from payment of customs duty under Notification No. 21/2002, dated 1-3-2002. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore, issued certificate in this regard entitling the Appellant to claim exemption. Based or, the Bills of Entry, examination of goods and the declaration filed by the Appellant, assessment was made and the hills were cleared. After lapse of 2 years 3 months, the Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, issued a show cause notice dated 5-6-2004 contending that the goods which are imported constitute cellular phone and hand sets, which are not exempted from payment of customs duty. The Appellant filed his reply. After hearing the Appellant, the adjudicating authority held that the Appellant has misclassified the goods and did not entitle for the benefit of exemption and therefore, he levied duty on the imported goods.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs, who dismissed the said appeal. Being aggrieved by the said two orders, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. Along with the appeal, he filed an application for waiving of pre-deposit. The Tribunal by a considered order, granted the Appellant full waiving of pre-deposit. The said order was challenged by the Revenue before this Court in Writ Petition No. 25431/2005. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge held that the Appellant did not plead undue hardship as a ground of seeking full waiving of pre-deposit and therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in granting the full waiver. Therefore, it set aside the order of the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant has filed this appeal before this Court.