Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cc, New Delhi vs Shri Mukesh Kumar on 28 November, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066.
Date of Hearing : 28.11.2013
Appeal No. C/704/2008 &
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 25/MKG/08 dated 31.7.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi)
CC, New Delhi Appellants/Applicants
Vs.
Shri Mukesh Kumar Respondent
Appeal No. C/615/2008 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 13/MDS/2007 19/05.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi) CC, New Delhi Appellants/Applicants Vs. Shri Mukesh Kumar Respondent Appearance Shri R.K. Mishra, A.R. - Appeared for appellant None - Appeared for respondent Coram: Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Honble Shri Manmohan Singh,Technical Member Final Order No. 58624-58625/2013 Per D.N. Panda :
The respondent in Appeal No. C/704/2008 and C/615/2008 is same. While one car imported involved in Appeal No. C/704/2008 was by Bill of Entry No. 148305 on 5.7.2008, there was import of another car on 14.5.2008 by Bill of Entry No. 992860 involved in Appeal No. C/615/2008. It shows that the respondent was frequent importer of cars in between two months gap. The car imported in Appeal case No. C/704/2008 was Mercedes Benz car made in Germany imported from United Kingdom. The car imported involved in Appeal No. C/615/2008 was a Toyoto Land Cruiser of Japanese origin, imported from England.
2. In both the cases, Revenues grievance is that the adjudicating authority did not examine the sale invoice of both the cars issued by the manufacturers to know country of origin and value thereof. When the cars did not come from country of origin, in that circumstance there was violation of conditions of import policy because countries of origin were not land locked country. That point deserves consideration in case of both imports.
3. Second grievance of Revenue is that the authority below who passed the impugned order had no regard to the appropriate valuation of the car examining Invoice of country of origin, relevant expenses of import and other aspects touching valuation of cars were ignored when imports were from countries other than country of manufacture.
4. The third grievance of Revenue is that although value of the car was depressed there was misplaced sympathy to the importer by ld. Authority below for reduction of redemption fine and penalty. All these aspects have serious repercussion on Revenue and impugned order has prejudiced Revenue.
5. Revenue submitted that Tribunal had occasion to deal with car import case in the case of Mangilipalli Pradeep Ramu Vs. CC 2013 (297) ELT 10 (Tri.-Del.) and CC Vs. Jaspreet Singh Jolly 2013 (288) ELT 379 (Del.) and particularly in Mangilipalli case the country of origin, valuation and quantum of penalty as well as redemption fine was carefully examined by Third Member on reference. Therefore if the ld. Adjudicating authority guides himself to follow the principle laid down in that case and also the guideline issued by Honble High Court of Delhi, in the case of Jaspreet Singh Jolly (supra), Revenue may not have grievance. At the least, the authority should examine the original invoice to arrive at the proper conclusion. Relevant considerations for fair determination of the value of the imported cars needs consideration.
6. Heard Revenue. It has already been indicated in the case of Mangilipalli Pradeep Ramu (supra) that redemption fine and penalty are very liberally imposed by Adjudicating Authority with ulter disregard to various consideration under mandate policy and valuation principles. Such fine and penalty sends message to the society that there is weak Revenue Administration in customs. When the condition of import are violated, the goods may become smuggled goods under Section 2(39) of the Customs Act 1962. This aspect should not be ignored while completing the adjudication.
7. Grounds of review of Revenue is merited and both appeals are remitted to ld adjudicating authority to grant fair opportunity to the respondent to defend on the grounds stated by Review Committee in Revenue appeal and upon hearing the respondent shall pass appropriate order.
(Dictated & pronounced in open Court)
(Manmohan Singh) (D.N. Panda)
Member (Technical) Judicial Member
RM
3