Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Microland Limited vs Commissioner Of Customs And Service ... on 12 February, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: C/557/2006-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 132/2006 dated 25/09/2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore] For approval and signature: HON'BLE SMT ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK K. ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER 1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? Yes 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes Microland Limited Microland House, No. 7 Koramangala, Bangalore 560 095 Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Customs and Service Tax, Bangalore C.R. Building, Queens Road, P.B. No. 5400, Bangalore 560 001 Karnataka Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri N. Anand, Advocate # 152, Race Course Road, Bangalore 560 001 Karnataka For the Appellant Shri Pakshi Rajan, AR For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 12/02/2016 Date of Decision: 12/02/2016 CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK K. ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER Final Order No. 20274 / 2016 Per: ASHOK K. ARYA
1. Appellant is in appeal in respect of certain electric goods which he imported during 1995-96 though goods were cleared under warehousing bill of entry and kept in warehouse. This warehousing period was extended by the Department on the request of the appellant. Meanwhile the appellant asked for permission for re-export of the goods. Customs gave re-export permission subject to payment of certain penalties which the appellant did pay. When the period of warehouse had expired, Department issued an order asking the appellants for payment of duty.
1.1. The appellant went in appeal and Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter back to Assistant Commissioner for de novo adjudication. Against the Commissioner (Appeals) order where he had remanded the matter to Assistant Commissioner, Department went in appeal before the Tribunal and Tribunal issued orders that the matter be decided by Commissioner (Appeals) himself as Commissioner did not have power to remand the case back for de novo consideration by the original adjudicating authority.
1.2. Commissioner (Appeals) passed another order confirming the original order of the lower authority wherein appellants were asked to pay duty concerning the impugned goods. Against this order of Commissioner (Appeals) appellants preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and Tribunal in its order dated 08.02.2005 in the case of Microland Vs. CCE, Bangalore [2005 (185) E.L.T. 109 (T)] passed the order setting aside the Commissioners order remanded the matter to original authority directing him to take necessary action on the request of the appellant for re-export of the goods in accordance with the law. Meanwhile the appellants had gone for examination of the goods and they found out that out of the 16 bonded consignments/goods 4 consignments had already been auctioned by Customs without any intimation to them and remaining 12 consignments/goods were found to be in open condition. However the Assistant Commissioner in his order dated 07.04.2006 allowed the appellant to re-export the goods in consequence of Tribunals order dated 08.02.2005 mentioned above.
1.2.1. The appellants point out that before the order was passed by Assistant Commissioner on 06.04.2006 the appellants had given a letter to relinquish the goods as the goods were not in right condition to be exported by the appellants. However the Department did take note of the request for relinquishment by the appellants and passed the order. Against the order of Assistant Commissioner passed on 06.04.2006 (issued on 07.04.2006) the appellant went in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who passed his Order No. 132/2006 dated 25.09.2006 confirming the order-in-original dated 06.04.2006 passed by Assistant Commissioner. Against this order appellants are before this Tribunal.
2. The appellants mainly contend that Customs all along have been careless and the result has been that their part goods have been auctioned without any intimation to them and that remaining goods of 12 consignments were also not in the condition to be re-exported as they had all been opened as the goods were being readied to be auctioned.
3. Revenue represented by learned AR, Shri Pakshi Rajan reiterates whatever is given in various orders of lower authorities.
4. The facts on record and the submissions of both the sides have been carefully considered.
4.1. We are of the view that all along the Revenue has not been careful, and especially when they have all along been approached by the appellants regarding re-export and when the appellants had paid the penalties imposed by the Customs for re-export. Finally when the appellants went for examination of the goods they found that without any intimation to them, Customs auctioned part goods and the remaining goods also they were ready to auction. It is on record that the goods were not in a condition suitable for re-export, when the permission for re-export was finalized and penalties had already been paid by the importer-appellant.
4.2. The appellants are before this Tribunal with a request that they be allowed to relinquish their goods because there cannot be any purpose served by re-exporting such goods as these goods are electric goods which have become obsolete by now. Considering full facts and circumstances on record, we are of the considered view that the request of the importer-appellant deserves to be accepted. There has not been any default on the part of importer-appellant as a reason for not allowing them relinquishment of the title of the goods, when the appellants had paid all the rents, interest and other charges and penalties which are payable as per provisions of Section 68 of the Customs Act 1962.
5. In view of the discussions above and the analyses the appellants request for relinquishment of the goods deserves acceptance and the Department is directed to accept the said request of the appellants. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(Order pronounced and dictated in open court) (ASHOK K. ARYA) TECHNICAL MEMBER (ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER iss