LAWS(CE)-2012-6-24

BHARTI AIRTEL LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE

Decided On June 07, 2012
BHARTI AIRTEL LTD. Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEAL No. C/573/2008 is filed by Bharti Airtel Ltd. (formerly known as Bharti Tele -Ventures Ltd.) hereinafter referred to as BAL or the first appellant against the order of the Commissioner No. 6/2008, dated 30 -4 -2008. By the above order, a demand of differential duty of Rs. 2,06,44,04,030/ - along with interest stands confirmed against BAL and penalty of equal amount of duty under Section 114A of the Customs Act imposed on BAL. In addition, the imported goods valued at Rs. 21,02,97,45,132 stand confiscated with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 48,80,00,000/ -.

(2.) 1 Stay petitions in the appeals filed by the parties were heard on 20 -10 -2008 and in the Stay Order dated 22 -10 -2008 [2009 (237) E.L.T. 469 (Tri. - Bang.)], all the appeals were ordered to be posted out -of -turn for final hearing on 25 -11 -2008. These appeals were heard for a few days and the order was reserved on 16 -1 -2009 but as the order was not pronounced within four months, the same came to be re -listed for fresh hearing. 2.2 The appeals were heard again on 5 -1 -2011 and 6 -1 -2011 and adjourned for further hearing on 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th February 2011. However, the hearing did not take place on those days before that bench.

(3.) 1 The present bench extensively heard both sides on the issue of jurisdiction as the appellants strongly contended that the ADG DRI who issued the show -cause notices had no jurisdiction to issue such show -cause notices in the light of judgment dated 18 -2 -2011 in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Sayed Ali and Another reported in 2011 (265) E.L.T. 17 (S.C.). Thereafter, the appeals were heard on merits. The hearing was spread over 9 days (i.e. on 29 -12 -2011, 12 -1 -2012, 7 -3 -2012, 17 -4 -2012, 18 -4 -2012, 19 -4 -2012, 23 -4 -2012, 24 -4 -2012 and 25 -4 -2012.) The learned Advocate Shri V. Laxmikumaran and Shri G. Shiva Dass appeared on behalf of the appellants. Shri P.R.V. Ramanan Special Counsel appeared on behalf of the department. 3.2 Both sides filed written submissions and synopsis of arguments both on the issues of jurisdiction and on merits and the same have also been taken into account.