Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Neoteric Informatique Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Import), ... on 11 September, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. I Application No. C/S/1972/12 in Appeal No. C/822/12 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. CC/MAK/13/2012-13/ADJ/ACC(I) dated 24.5.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports), ACC, Mumbai). For approval and signature: Honble Shri S.S. Kang, Vice-President Honble Shri Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities? ====================================================== M/s Neoteric Informatique Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Respondent Appearance: Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate for Appellant Shri Amand Shah, Addl. Commr. (AR) for Respondent CORAM: SHRI S.S. KANG, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SAHAB SINGH, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing: 11.09.2012 Date of Decision: 11.09.2012 ORDER NO. Per: Shri S.S. Kang, Vice President Heard both sides.
2. Applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.18,93,066/- and interest.
3. The contention of the applicant is that show-cause notice dated 1.9.2010 was issued demanding duty of Rs.18,77,996/- on the ground that as per Notification No. 29/2010 dated 27.2.2010 all pre-packaged goods intended for retail sale where, retail sale prices of such articles are required to be declared on the packages thereof are exempted from payment of Special Additional Duty of Customs leviable under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. As the applicant availed exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-cE dated 1.3.2006 at Sr. No. 17 for the imported goods, it appears that the goods are not meant for retail saile. Hence, the applicants are not entitled for benefit of Notification No. 29/2010. The applicants filed detailed reply to the show-cause notice and the adjudicating authority vide impugned order held that the applicants had produced proof of the goods being sold in the retail market, hence they are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 29/2010 and the applicants are not eligible for CVD exemption under Notification No. 6/2006 and confirmed a demand of Rs.18,93,066/- .
4. The contention is that the adjudicating authority has traveled beyond the show-cause notice and the same cannot be sustained.
5. The Revenue relied upon the findings of the lower authority.
6. We have gone through the adjudication order and find that the show-cause notice was issued for denial of exemption under Notification No. 29/2010 dated 27.2.2010, whereas in the adjudication order, the adjudicating authority denied the exemption under Notification No. 6/2006 dated 01.03.2006.
7. In view of the above situation, we find merit in the contention of the applicant that the adjudicating authority has traveled beyond the scope of show-cause notice, therefore, the matter requires reconsideration in view of the allegation made in the show-cause notice. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration of the issue after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants.
8. Appeal is disposed of by way of remand.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
(Sahab Singh) (S.S. Kang)
Member (Technical) Vice-President
Sinha/
1