Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Bilcare Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Pune on 21 June, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO.1
Appeal No.C/151/10
(Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No. GOA/CUS/CM/114/2009 dtd. 30/11/2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Goa)
For approval and signature:
Mr. Justice R.M.S.Khandeparkar, President
========================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
=============================================================
M/s. Bilcare Ltd.
:
Appellant
VS
Commissioner of Customs, Pune
Respondent
Appearance
Shri S.S.Gupta, C.A. for Appellant
Shri N.A.Sayyad, JDR for Respondent
CORAM:
Mr. Justice R.M.S.Khandeparkar, President
Date of hearing :21/06/10
ORAL ORDER NO.
Per : Mr. Justice R.M.S.Khandeparkar Heard the ld.advocate for the appellant and the ld.JDR for the respondent.
2. The dispute relates to failure on the part of the appellant to produce export obligation discharge certificate so as to avail the benefit of Notification No.93/2004 dated 10.09.2004. The ld.advocate for the appellant has stated that at the relevant time, on account of certain technical reasons, the appellant was not in possession of the relevant certificate. However, at present, the certificate has already been obtained by the appellant, and therefore, necessary opportunity be granted to the appellant to produce the same and in that regard the matter be remanded to the concerned adjudicating authority.
3. Upon hearing the ld.advocate for the appellant and the ld.DR for the respondent, I am of the considered opinion that, since availability of such certificate clearly entitles the appellant to avail the benefit under Notification No.92/2004, merely because at the relevant time the appellant was not in possession of such certificate, the appellant could not be penalized in the manner he was sought to be penalized in the impugned order. On that count, the impugned order needs to be set aside and the matter to be remanded to the concerned adjudicating authority to take into consideration the certificate in question and, decide the matter afresh in accordance with the provision of law. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the concerned adjudicating authority to decide the matter afresh after taking into consideration the certificate which the appellant wants to produce before him.
4. The appeal stands disposed of.
(Pronounced in court) Justice R.M.S.Khandeparkar, President pv 2