(1.) HEARD both sides.
(2.) THE issue in dispute is whether appellant is liable to pay Customs duty on the value of documentation imported by them along with the software, for which a separate invoice, was raised. The ld. Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the show cause notice is without jurisdiction as the same was issued by the Addl. Director General, DRI, who is not the proper officer Under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, to issue a demand notice. He placed reliance on the decision in the case of Ramnarain Bishwanath . Orient Arts and Crafts - and Poona Roller - . He further submitted that the demand was not sustainable as assessments in a number of cases were provisional. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of Larger Bench in the case of ITC Ltd. 2004 (63) RLT 350 (T) and S.C. decision in the case of Serai Kella Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE 1997 (19) RLT 821 (S.C.). He submitted that in respect of the balance bills of entry which had been finally assessed the demand was barred by limitation as the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Tata Infotech Ltd. - , had, based on similar evidence, allowed the appeal filed by Tata Infotech Ltd. on the grounds of limitation by recording that there was a practice existing in the various Custom Houses at that point of time to assess software and documents separately under two different classifications by splitting the value between the two.
(3.) THE ld. SDR, submits that the issue regarding jurisdiction of the DRI has been settled and decided against the appellants by the Larger Bench in the case of Konia Trading Co. - . He further submits that the case of Tata Infotech Ltd. is distinguishable on facts as in the present case there is evidence existing on record to prove that the values of split up into two components as per the instructions of the importer. He further submits that the contention regarding prov, assessment does not absolve the appellant of its liability to pay duty.