Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Dsm Sinochem Pharmaceuticals (I) ... vs Cc, New Delhi on 17 November, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI
Date of Hearing/Decision:17.11.2016
Customs Appeals Nos.51352 & 51353/2016-DB
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.CC(A)/CUS/D-I/IMP/102/2016 dated 3.2.2016 in Appeal No.C/51352/2016 and Order-in-Appeal No.CC(A)/CUS/D-I/Gen/106/2016 dated 3.2.2016 in Appeal No.C/51353/2016, both passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Customs House, New Delhi]
For Approval and Signature:
Honble Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see 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 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 authorities?
M/s.DSM Sinochem Pharmaceuticals (I) Pvt. Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
CC, New Delhi Respondent
Appearance:
Rep. by Shri Ashok Dhingra, Advocate for the appellant. Rep. by Shri S.K Sheonan, DR for the respondent. Coram: Honble Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Final Order No.55232-55233/2016 Per Archana Wadhwa:
After hearing both the sides, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) while disposing of the appellants appeals has observed as under:-
The appellants further submitted that interest is not leviable on the differential duty as the impugned import took place in 1995 and the interest provisions came in the year 2007 without any retrospective clause. The appellants cited several judgements in support of their averments. However, I notice that the Adjudicating Authority has not discussed any of the submissions made by the appellants including various case laws cited by the Appellants. Thus, the Adjudicating Authority has not followed the principles of natural justice which is contrary to the judgements by various judicial authorities given on this issue. The Adjudicating Authority has not given any independent findings on the documents filed by the Appellants before the jurisdictional authorities of Central Excise. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority has erred in arriving at the decision without discussing the submissions made by the appellants and without varying the connected documents submitted by them. I also notice that the Adjudicating Authority has gone beyond the scope of show cause notice by imposing penalty on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, which is legally not tenable.
2. As is seen from the above, the Appellate Authority has observed that the Original Adjudicating Authority has passed the order in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as many of the issues were raised by the appellant and many of the documents placed by the appellant on record have not been verified and examined by him.
3. The only grievance of the appellant is that instead of remanding the matter, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have decided the issue himself.
4. Without going into the legal question as to whether the Commissioner (Appeals) has gone into the merits of the case or not, we find that admittedly, the Original Adjudicating Authority has passed the order in violation of the principles of natural justice, in which case we deem it fit to remand the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed by way of remand.
[Order dictated in the open court] ( Archana Wadhwa ) Member (Judicial) ( V. Padmanabhan ) Member (Technical) Ckp.
1