Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Transit Freight Forwarders vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 18 August, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE Final Order No. 21476 / 2014 Application(s) Involved: C/Stay/21436/2014 in C/21272/2014-DB Appeal(s) Involved: C/21272/2014-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. TVM-EXCUS-000-COM-17-13-14 dated 08/01/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Thirivananthapuram] M/s Transit Freight Forwarders No. 31/995(2), Palkulangara THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695024 KERALA. Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Thiruvannathapuram T.C. NO.26/334(1&2), I.C.E BHAVAN,PRESS CLUB ROAD, TRIVANDRUM 695001. Respondent(s)
Appearance :
P.A. AUGUSTIAN ADV FAIZEL CHAMBERS, PULLEPADY CROSS ROAD, COCHIN KOCHI (Kerala) For the Appellant Mr. A. K. Nigam, A.R. For the Respondent CORAM :
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ________________________________________ Date of Hearing: 18/08/2014 Date of Decision: 18/08/2014 Per B.S.V. MURTHY Proceedings against the appellants were initiated on the ground that they were not holding sufficient infrastructure to carry out the activities of the courier agencies on which they were registered. Further it was also held that the appellants are liable to pay duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 in respect of imports made by them by filing Bills of Entry under Courier Import and Export (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 (CIECR). According to the Regulations, value of goods less than Rs. 10,000/-, courier agency can handle and is required to produce an authorization from the consignee. The Board issued a Circular whereby such authorization need not to be filed before the clearance of the goods but has to be kept by the courier agency at least for one year for scrutiny and audit. In this case, in respect of 2583 Bills of Entry, duty demand has been made on the ground that the goods have to be assessed as unaccompanied baggage and not courier items. This has been done on the ground that the appellants have miss-declared the description of the goods and the consignees were non-existent.
2. In this case, considering the fact that there is no categorical finding that the goods were different consignments, there is no evidence to support the claim that the goods were actually unaccompanied baggage and in the absence of details of consignments verified and found to be fictitious, we consider that at this stage itself the matter should be remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication. Further we also consider that since the appellants were to keep the authorization only for one year, the question as to whether the demand could have been made for more than one year from the issue of show cause notice is also required to be considered. All these aspects have not been considered in a perspective manner by the adjudicating authority and therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The appellant shall extend full cooperation in the de novo proceedings.
(Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court) (S.K. MOHANTY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER /vc/