Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Ojaswi Marbles & Granites (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Exports) on 18 September, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH
CHENNAI
Appeal Nos.C/S/41447/13 & C/41711/2013
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal C.Cus.No.686/2013 dt. 3.5.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Chennai]
For approval and signature :
Honble Shri P.K. Das, Judicial Member
Honble Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member
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 the Members wish to see the fair copy of
the order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities ? :
Ojaswi Marbles & Granites (P) Ltd. Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Customs (Exports)
Chennai Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Karthik Nair, Advocate For the Appellant
Ms.Indira Sisupal, AC (AR) For the Respondent
CORAM :
Honble Shri P.K. Das, Judicial Member
Honble Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member
Date of Hearing : 18-09-2014 Date of Decision : 18-09-2014
FINAL ORDER No.40614/2014
Per P.K. Das
1. After hearing both sides, we find that the appeals may be decided at the stage of stay petition hearing. Accordingly, we take up the appeal after disposing the stay application.
2. After hearing both sides, and on perusal of the records, we find that the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty for non-fulfilment of export obligation. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of the stay order.
3. Learned Advocate submits that after passing of the order of Commissioner (Appeals), they received the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) from the Jt. DGFT. In this context, he drew the attention of the Bench to letter dt. 5.6.2014 issued by the Foreign Trade Development Officer stating that the appellant had fulfilled the export obligation in respect of the licence in question.
4. In view of the above, we consider that it is appropriate that the matter should be remanded to the adjudicating authority for verification of EODC along with other documents. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for verification of EODC along with other documents. Needless to say that the adjudicating authority shall give proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant before decision. Appeal is allowed by way of remand. Stay application is disposed of.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(R. PERIASAMI) (P.K. DAS)
TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
gs
2