Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Irwin Leathers vs Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai on 14 October, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
Appeal No. C/41328/2014
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal C. Cus. No.482/2014 dated 19.3.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai)
M/s. Irwin Leathers Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Respondent
Appearance Shri T. Sundaranathan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Date of Hearing / Decision: 14.10.2016 Final Order No. 41857 / 2016s It is serious objection by the learned counsel that the report of CLRI (copy of which is appearing in page 25 of the appeal folder) has not satisfied the conditions of the law. Therefore, that is not acceptable to law. He says that the trade notice has not been issued under Customs law. That was issued under Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The authority ought to have clearly stated the requirement of the trade notice to differ with that. That has not been done.
2. To resolve the controversy, the adjudicating authority is directed to issue summons to the designated authority of the CLRI who had issued the report dated 26.11.2013 and examine his records as well as his versions. Appellant is entitled to cross-examine the authority who deposes before the adjudicating authority, if required. Such an opportunity being basic foundation of the process of natural justice, appellant cannot be denied to that. Only upon examination and cross-examination, truth shall be revealed. On the basis of the outcome of the process, the authority shall pass an appropriate order.
3. In the result, appeal is remanded to the adjudicating authority with the above direction. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) (D.N. Panda) Judicial Member Rex 2