IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CUSAP No. 21 of 2010 Date of Decision: 23.9.2010 Commissioner of Central Excise ....Appellant. Versus M/s Pulse Copier ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. HPS Ghuman, Advocate for Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Saurab Kapoor, Advocate for the respondent. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This order will dispose of CUSAP Nos. 21 to 23 of 2010 as all the appeals involve common question. 2. In CUSAP No. 21 of 2010, the appeal of the revenue is against final order Nos C/370-373/08 dated 26.8.2008 (Annexure A-4) passed by the Ld. Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, proposing following substantial question of law:- “Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT was justified in dismissing the appeals as not maintainable on the grounds that the appeals were filed without the opinion and authorization of Committee of Commissioners of Customs which are contrary to provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 129A of the CUSAP No. 21 of 2010 -2- Customs Act, 1962, through the fact is that opinion of the Committee of Commissioner was there in the file notings and appeal was filed under the signature of the Commissioner who was the member of the Committee?” 3. Learned counsel for the assessee states that the above question cannot be held to be a substantial question of law as there is finding that machines were second hand machines, value of which could not be compared with the new machines. It has also been found that the goods were capital goods import of which was valid as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Atul Commodities Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin, 2009 (235) ELT 385 (SC). He, however, states that identical matters have been decided against the revenue by order dated 9.9.2010 in CUSAP No. 24 of 2010 (Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III v. M/s. B.E. Office Automation Products Pvt. Ltd). 4. This position could not be disputed on behalf of the revenue. 5. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 23, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CUSAP No. 22 of 2010 Date of Decision: 23.9.2010 Commissioner of Central Excise ....Appellant. Versus M/s B.E. Office Automation ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. HPS Ghuman, Advocate for Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Saurab Kapoor, Advocate for the respondent. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. For orders, see CUSAP No. 21 of 2010 (Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s Pulse Copier). (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 23, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CUSAP No. 23 of 2010 Date of Decision: 23.9.2010 Commissioner of Central Excise ....Appellant. Versus M/s Digitech Photocopier ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. HPS Ghuman, Advocate for Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Saurab Kapoor, Advocate for the respondent. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. For orders, see CUSAP No. 21 of 2010 (Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s Pulse Copier). (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 23, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE