Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Tata Sky Ltd vs Cc (Import & General), New Delhi on 16 March, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Principal Bench, New Delhi COURT NO. IV DATE OF HEARING : 16/03/2016. DATE OF DECISION : 16/03/2016. Customs Appeal Nos. 667-671 of 2010 [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. CCA/I&G/168-172/2010 dated 07/09/2010 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, New Custom House, New Delhi.] For Approval and signature : Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) 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 would 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 of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the : Department Authorities? M/s Tata Sky Ltd. Appellant Versus CC (Import & General), New Delhi Respondent
Appearance Ms. Shagun Arora and Shri S. Vasudevan, Advocates for the appellant.
S/Shri Rajeev Gupta, Amresh Jain, Authorized Representative (CDR/DR) for the Respondent.
CORAM : Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 51033-51037/2016 Dated : 16/03/2016 Per. B. Ravichandran :-
The appellant is before us against the order dated 07/09/2010 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi. In the impugned order the learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appeals filed by the appellants are premature in as much as there is no speaking order against six assessed bills of entry and the duty has also been paid under protest. The learned Counsel for the appellant states that they were not in agreement with the assessment denying the exemption of CVD in terms of Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 01/03/2006. In a similar situation for the previous consignments, the first Appellate Authority while disposing of the similar appeals by the appellant remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to pass a speaking order regarding the assessment and denial of exemption. The Counsel pleaded that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) fell in error in holding the appeals against the assessed bill of entry as premature. At best he could have remanded the matter for detailed order by the assessing original authority.
2. We have heard both the sides and examined the appeal records. The short point for decision is that whether the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is correct in holding the appeals as premature without giving a finding either on the merit or directing the Original Authority to give a detailed finding on merit. We are in agreement of the learned Counsel for the appellant that dismissing the appeals as premature is not justifiable. In the facts and circumstances of the case as narrated above, we find that this is a fit case for remand to the Original Authority for passing a reasoned order in respect of the claim for exemption by the appellant. Due opportunity shall be given to the appellant to present their case before a decision is taken. We note that the matter is more than six years old and accordingly advise the Original Authority to take a decision at the earliest possible; at least not later than three months. The appeals are disposed of in above terms.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) (B. Ravichandran) Member (Technical) PK ??
??
??
??
2