Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cc(Preventive), Amritsar vs M/S. Punjab Concast Steel on 15 April, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi-110066. Principal Bench, New Delhi. C/266-67/06 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No.16/Cus/05 dt.28.2.05 passed by the Commissioner of Customs(Preventive), Amritsar) CC(Preventive), Amritsar Appellant Versus M/s. Punjab Concast Steel Respondent
Appearance Sh. Fateh Singh, Authorised Departmental Representative(DR) For Appellant None for the Respondent Coram: Honble Mr. D.N.PANDA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Honble Mr. RAKESH KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of decision: 15.4.09 Order No.________________________ Per D.N.Panda:
None appeared for the respondent.
2. On the last occasion of hearing on 23.2.09, when the respondents were not present, to grant an opportunity of hearing, we adjourned the matter to 15.4.09 and notice was issued. Today we noticed that the noticee has been returned back with the postal remark no such firm.. This postal remark was made on 19.3.09. The returned notice in the cover itself is available on the record. It appears that the respondent is not conscious of its right to respond to the appeal filed by Revenue. Therefore, we proceed to decide the matter on its own merit.
2. Ld. DR Shri Fateh Singh appearing on behalf of Revenue. at the outset submits that order of adjudication has dropped the proceedings initiated by the show cause notice without examining the test report issued by CRCL Laboratory. He cites that the goods imported was questionable following CRCL report. According to the report of CRCL, the goods in question were having characteristics of Palm Kernel Fatty Acid with Free Fatty Acid 81.4% by weight as Palmitic Acid. When the report has brought out the characteristics of the tested goods, goods shall not submit to the class of Palm Kernel Acid Oil. Therefore, according to revenue when the goods were subjected to test by CRCL and report dt.1.9.2000 was obtained, SCNs were issued on 9.1.02 and 9.11.01. According to the revenue, on account of misdeclaration of description i.e. the goods being Palm Kernal Fatty Acid as against declared description of Palm Kernal Acid Oil for both the consignments, the value is to be redetermined at the rate of US$ 443/- per T.T. C&F as against declared calue of US$ 320/- per m.t. Therefore, the proceedings proposed by SCN be confirmed.
3. We heard Revenue extensively and examined the record with details available. We are convinced that the test report of CRCL laboratory was not under challenge without any contradictory evidence brought by the respondent. The respondent had made submission before the Ld. Commissioner that retesting was the alternate to resolve the dispute. But such a proposition was altogether brushed aside. The matter has been proceeded on the basis of technical literature as is apparent from page 14. Ld. Commissioner had no technical advice from CRCL as to the nature of the goods and without consulting CRCL he accepted the Respondents contention that FFA percentage by out; if expressed as lauric acid will be 63.60% and the goods are Acil Oil not Palm Kernal Fatty Acid.
4. In view of aforesaid observations, it would be proper to remit back the matter to the Ld. adjudicating authority to properly exmine test report available on record in consultation with the CRCL and also look into the aspect of any retesting issue pending on record. He shall deal the matter in accordance with law by an objective examination of the characteristic of goods in question on the basis of test report.
Ld. adjudicating authority shall deal with the matter a fresh in accordance with law giving due regard to the decision cited by the Revenue in the case of Reliance Cellulose Products Ltd. vs CCE, Hyderabad reported in 1997(93)ELT.646(DC) and in the case of Polyglass Acrylic Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs CC, Vishakhapatnam reported in 2003(153)ELT.276(SC). It is left open to the adjudicating authority to hear grievance of the respondent afresh and dispose the matter by reasoned and speaking order.
5. In the result, both the appeals are remanded to the Ld. Adjudicating Authority.
6. We have noticed that the matter is rolling on record from the year 2000. Therefore, the matter is expected to be disposed within three months from the date of receipt of the order.
Order dictated in the open Court.
(D.N.Panda) Judicial Member (Rakesh Kumar) Member Technical km