Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Polyglass Acrylic Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd vs C.C.E., New Delhi on 11 January, 2011
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi COURT-IV Date of hearing/decision: 11.1.2011 Customs Appeals Nos.230, 231, 232, 233 and 234 of 2007 Arising out of the order in appeal No.13/Cus/Appl/DLH-IV/2007 dated 14.3.2007; 5 to 9/Cus/Appl/DLH-IV/2007 dated 9.2.2007; 4/Cus/Appl/DLH-IV/2007 dated 9.2.2007; 15/Cus/Appl/DLH-IV/2007 dated 14.3.2007 and 12/Cus/Appl/DLH-IV/2007 dated 14.3.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi I, New CGO Complex, NH-IV, Faridabad. For Approval and Signature: Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member Honble Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Technical Member 1 Whether Press Reporter 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 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? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes M/s Polyglass Acrylic Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. .. Appellants M/s Y.S. Enterprises Vs. C.C.E., New Delhi . Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Prem Ranjan, Advocate for the appellants Shri K.K. Jaiswal, Authorized Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue Coram: Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member Honble Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Technical Member Oral Order No.____________________ Per Archana Wadhwa:
All the five appeals are being disposed of by this common order as the issue involved is identical.
2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the enhancement of the value of the imported goods done by the assessing officer on the bill of entry. The grievance of the appellants is that such enhancement of the value was not accepted by them and the appeal was filed their against which stands rejected by the Commissioner by relying upon the various contemporaneous imports.
3. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that such relied upon contemporaneous imports were never supplied or disclosed to the appellants and as such, reliance on the same by the authorities below for the first time in his impugned orders is neither justified nor is in accordance with law. He further submits that even the original authority did not pass a reasoned speaking order.
4. After hearing the learned DR and after going through the impugned order and keeping in view the pleas raised by the learned Advocate, we set aside the impugned orders and remand the matters to the original adjudicating authority for passing a reasoned speaking order. Needless to say that the materials proposed to be relied upon by the Department would be disclosed to the appellants well in advance, who would be within their rights to put their defence on record. Principles of natural justice would be observed by the adjudicating authority.
5. In view of the above, all the appeals are allowed by way of remand.
(Archana Wadhwa) Judicial Member (M. Veeraiyan) Technical Member scd/ 3