ELECTRO GRAPHICS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these four appeals are taken up together for disposal as per law as the issue involved in all these four appeals is common and they can be disposed of by the common order. The issue involved in these appeals is as to whether the import of used photocopier, copying assembly which are second hand machinery, is required to be treated as capital goods. The lower authorities have held that they are not capital goods and had denied the benefit of OGL. The goods had been confiscated. However granting redemption on fine and penalty on the ground that the licence is required for import. The matter had been referred to the Larger Bench in the case of Atul Commodities (P) Ltd. & Ors. v. CC, Cochin [2005 (184) E.L.T. 135 (Tri. -LB) = 2005 (100) ECC 409 (Tri. -LB)]. After due consideration by the Bench presided by Honble President, the Tribunal, held that the import of second hand photocopier machines are to be treated as capital goods and does not require licence as they are freely importable under OGL. The appeals were allowed by the Larger Bench. Following the ratio of this Larger Bench judgment, this Bench also in the case of M/s. Office Devices and Others v. CC, Cochin by Final Order Nos. 1019 -1026/2005 dated 28 -6 -2005 allowed the appeals. However, the learned Counsel does not challenge the valuation. He submits that the appeals have to be allowed only on the ground that the import does not require licence and hence the confiscation fine and penalty is required to be set aside.

(2.) LEARNED SDR fairly conceded that the issue is covered by the cited judgments. However, he wishes to reiterate the departmental view.

(3.) ON a careful consideration, we notice that the submissions made by learned Counsel is correct. In all these four appeals, the issue pertains to import of second hand used photocopier, copying assembly and machines. The authorities have proceeded to confiscate the goods on the premise that they are required to be imported by licence under Exim policy. However the appellants plea that it is capital goods and does not require licence has been accepted by the Larger Bench in the above noted citation. The said citation has also been followed by this Bench in the cited judgment. Respectively following the ratio thereof, all the four appeals are allowed. On aspect pertaining to import without licence, the order of confiscation and imposition of fine and penalty is set aside in all the four appeals. Appeals allowed accordingly with consequential relief if any.