Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S C. Mahendra Exports Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Ahmedabad on 8 October, 2015
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
Appeal No.C/429,430/2007
[Arising out of OIO No.07/COMMR/SURAT/HIRABOURSE/EXP/2007, dt.22.10.2007, passed by Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad]
1. M/s C. Mahendra Exports Ltd
2. Shri Suresh K. Mehta Appellants
Vs
Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad Respondent
Represented by:
For Appellant: Shri H.D. Dave, Advocate For Respondent: Shri T.K. Sikdar, Authorised Representative For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.M. Saleem, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No 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 Seen the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?
CORAM:
HONBLE MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HONBLE MR. P.M. SALEEM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing/Decision: 08.10.2015 Order No.A/11398-11399/2015, dt.08.10.2015 Per: P.K. Das After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the Appellant No.1 M/s C. Mahendra Exports P. Ltd and the Appellant No.2 Shri Suresh K. Mehta, Director of the Appellant No.1 filed these appeals against the confiscation and imposition of redemption fine and penalty. The Appellant Company filed Shipping Bill No.000719, dt.16.01.2007 for export of Polished Diamonds of total weight of 1792.89 Carats. The sample of the exported goods was examined by a panel of experts (hereinafter referred to as First Panel) and found over-valuation of the goods. Subsequently, another panel (hereinafter referred to as Second Panel) was constituted at the request of the Appellant as per the standing order issued by the Customs authorities. In the report of the Second Panel, it was found that there was marginal difference of value as declared by the Appellant. The Adjudicating authority accepted the report of the First Panel and rejected the opinion Second Panel. The learned Advocate on behalf of the Appellant submits that the Second Panel was constituted as per the standing order of the Commissioner which should be accepted by the Adjudicating authority. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following decisions:-
i) CC, Mumbai Vs Mahalaxmi Gems 2008 (231) ELT 198 (SC)
ii) Sahil Diamonds Pvt.Ltd. Vs CC, Ahmedabad 2010 (250) ELT 310 (Tri-Ahmd)
iii) Akshay Exports & Inds. Vs CC, Mumbai 2003 (156) ELT 268 (Tri-Kolkata)
iv) Advance Exports Vs CC, Kandla 2007 (218) ELT 39 (Tri-Ahmd)
2. We find that the Adjudicating authority had given a detailed finding for accepting the opinion of the First Panel. There is no finding on rejecting the report of the Second Panel. We also noticed that there is no finding on the legal issue for rejecting the report of Second Panel which was constituted as per the Standing Order. Hence, it is difficult to proceed in the matter, as there is no clarity in the finding of the Adjudicating authority. In our considered view, the Adjudicating authority should have given a detailed finding for accepting the report of the First Panel as well as rejecting the direction of the standing order on Second Panel in detail.
3. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned order. The matter is remanded to the Adjudicating authority to decide afresh, after considering the observations as above and the submissions of the Appellant and to pass order in accordance with law. We make it clear that this order is passed without expressing any opinion on merits. Needless to say that the Adjudicating authority shall give proper opportunity of hearing before passing order. Both the appeals are allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)
(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
cbb
3