M/s. Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. CC, Bangalore Vs. M/s. Bharti Airtel Ltd. M/s. Bharti Hexacom Ltd. M/s. Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. Appearance Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran & Mr. G. Shiva Dass, Advocates, for the appellants Mr. P.R.V. Ramanan, special counsel for the Revenue Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical) FINAL ORDER Nos.__________________________2012 [Order per: M. Veeraiyan]. 1.1. Appeal No. C/573/2008 is filed by Bharti Airtel Ltd. (formerly known as Bharti TeleVentures Ltd.) hereinafter referred to as BAL or the first appellant against the order of the Commissioner No. 6/2008 dated 30.04.2008. 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. 2102,97,45,132 stand confiscated with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 48,80,00,000/. 1.2. Appeal No. C/574/2008 is by Bharti Hexacom Ltd. hereinafter referred to as BHL or the second appellant against the order of the Commissioner No. 6/2008 dated 30.04.2008. By the above order, a demand of differential duty of Rs. 9,10,94,185/ along with interest stands confirmed against BHL and penalty of equal amount of duty under Section 114A of the Customs Act imposed on BHL. In addition, the imported goods valued at Rs 98,31,12,721/ stand confiscated with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 2,35,00,000/. 1.3. Appeal No. C/575/2008 is by M/s. Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. hereinafter called EIL or the third appellant against the order of the Commissioner No. 6/2008 dated 30.04.2008 challenging imposition of penalty of Rs. 10 Crores under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. 1.4. Six appeals Nos. C/613 to 618/2008, [one appeal each corresponding to each of six showcause notices] filed by the department seek enhancement of penalties imposed under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962. It is prayed that penalties should be imposed equivalent to the duty demanded plus the corresponding interest accrued under Section 28AB of the said Act instead of penalties equivalent to the duty demanded. 1.5. As all these appeals arise out of common impugned order passed by a common adjudicating authority and involve common facts and legal issues, they are being disposed of by this common order. 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, all the appeals were ordered to be posted outofturn for final hearing on 25.11.2008. These appeals were heard for a few days and the order was reserved on 16.01.2009 but as the order was not pronounced within four months, the same came to be relisted for fresh hearing. 2.2. The appeals were heard again on 05.01.2011 and 06.01.2011 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 showcause notices had no jurisdiction to issue such showcause notices in the light of judgment dated 18.02.2011 in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Syed Ali and another reported as [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, 12.01.2012, 07.03.2012, 17.04.2012, 18.04.2012, 19.04.2012, 23.04.2012, 24.04.2012 and 25.04.2012.) 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