COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE Vs. SRIKRISHNA PRINTER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The correctness of the common order dated 5-8-2005 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Bangalore (hereinafter referred as the Tribunal' for short) in Appeal Nos. 1381-1384/2005, dated 5-8-2005 is challenged in this appeal framing the following substantial questions of law and urging the grounds in support of the same.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the appellants contends in support of the substantial questions of law placing reliance upon the Exim Policy Circular dated 19-10-2005 vide Annexure-G issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade in exercise of his power under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (No. 22 of 1992) read with paragraph 1.3 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009 as amended from time to time, the Central Government has made the amendment which reads thus :

(3.) Therefore, the learned Counsel submits that the goods imported are not capital goods. Therefore, it requires the licence. Non-obtaining of the licence by the respondent has rendered it liable to pay the penalty upon the imported machine that order is passed by the Assessing Authority on appreciation of facts and material evidence on record. The same is affirmed by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal has set aside the order of assessment by applying the Larger Bench decision of CESTAT, Northern Bench, New Delhi in the case of Atul Commodities (P) Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Cus., Cochin & Hyderabad,2005 184 ELT 135. In support of the aforesaid submission he has placed reliance upon the decision of Kerala High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Cochin vAtul Commodities Pvt. Ltd ., reported in 2006 (202) E.L.T. 392 (Ker.) wherein the said High Court has set aside the Larger Bench decision of the aforesaid Tribunal.