Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Jindal Iron And Steel Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs, Acc, Sahar on 5 September, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(147)ELT984(TRI-MUMBAI)
JUDGMENT
Gowri Shankar, Member (Technical)
1. Appeal taken up for disposal with consent of both sides.
2. Notice number S-10/2059/98-Gr.VII dated 7.11.98 was issued to the appellant proposing to recover the duty foregone on the goods that it imported cleared in terms of notification 203/92 on the ground that one of the conditions subject to which exemption contained in the notification is available, that modvat credit should not be taken in the manufacture of the export product had been contravened. By order 651/2000 dated 31.8.2000, Commissioner of Customs (Import), recording the submission of the importer and the fact that it was represented on the hearing before him concluded that modvat credit had not been taken and dropped the proceedings. Another order dated 30.10.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo, Sahar is impugned in this appeal. Counsel for the appellant contends that second order is once again adjudicated on the same show cause notice and confirmed the demand for duty.
3. On reading both the orders, we find that the show cause notice number, the amount of duty involved and the number and date of the import licence are common. The bill of entry is not mentioned either in the show cause notice or in the order. It is thus clear to us that the same notice has been adjudicated twice. Counsel of the appellant and the departmental representative both suggests that during the relevant time, in order to deal with a large number of notices which had been issued, they were distributed among various Commissioners in the city. This may no doubt explain hoe the notice has come to be adjudicated twice. Whatever the reason, the second order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Sahar is a nullity and void ab initio.
4. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.