Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Fag Precision Bearing Ltd. vs Commr. Of Cus. on 27 February, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998ECR51(TRI.-MUMBAI), 1998(100)ELT128(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T)
1. The appeal is directed against the order dated 20-2-1997 of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) captioned above.
2. The Appellants entered into various agreements with the West German collaborates and signed agreements for consultancy and technical know-how. After proposing to load the assessable value of the components imported by the Appellant to the extent of 0.9% for the use of the trade mark of the West German Collaborators, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs passed an . order dated 8-6-1993 accepting the contentions of the Appellant and withdrawing the proposal in the show cause notice for enhancement of the assessable value. This order of the Assistant Commissioner was sought to be reviewed by the Commissioner of Customs by filing a review application before the Commissioner (Appeals) and that authority allowed the department's appeal and set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order.
3. Shri S. Kantawala, the learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Commissioner (Appeals) has fixed personal hearing in the matter on 4-9-1996 at 1.00 p.m. The Appellant had submitted a letter seeking adjournment on the same day on the ground that the learned Counsel who has to argue their case was busy before the Tribunal, yet the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order ex parte.
4. We have heard Shri D. Gurnard, the Id. DR.
5. We find that there is a letter of 4-9-1996 from the Appellants addressed to the Commissioner (Appeals) seeking adjournment as already stated above and there is also evidence on that letter itself that it was received on the same day by the receiving clerk in the Commissioner (Appeals)' office. We further find that the impugned order ex parte has observed that no one appeared on the day of personal hearing and there was no communication seeking any postponement. As noted above this observation is not factually correct. It is also observed by us that ultimately the impugned order was passed on 14-2-1997. Therefore they could justifiably say that the Appellant should have been given another opportunity for personally explaining their case through their Counsel. It would also appear that they have submitted a detailed cross-objection to the department's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) of which there is not much of a discussion, which also we feel is necessary especially when the Assistant Commissioner's order which is in favour of the Appellant is set aside. In the circumstances, therefore we are satisfied that this is a fit case that the Appellant be given a fresh opportunity for oral representation and in this view of the matter we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for adjudication de novo in accordance with law after hearing the Appellant in the matter. We expect that the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.