Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Patiala Castings Pvt. Ltd vs Cc, Chandigarh on 27 March, 2009
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATETRIBUNAL,
West Block No.2, R.K Puram, New Delhi-110066
Principal Bench.
Date of hearing:27.03.2009
Customs Stay Applications Nos.25, 27 and 29 of 2009
Appeals Nos.06-08 of 2009-SM (BR)
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.121-123/CUS/LHD/2008 dated 29.09.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial)
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 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
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
authorities?
______________________________________________________
M/s.Patiala Castings Pvt. Ltd. Appellant/Applicant
(Rep. By None for the Appellant/Applicant)
Vs.
CC, Chandigarh Respondent
(Rep. by Shri S.K. Bhaskar, DR for the Respondent) Coram: Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Order No. _________________________________ Per: P.K. Das All the appeals are arising out of common order-in-appeal and, therefore, all are being taken-up together, for disposal. The findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) are that the appellants failed to produce the required end use certificates. Therefore, the appellants were directed to pre-deposit the entire amount of duty in terms of Section 129 E of the Customs Act. The appellants failed to comply with the Stay Order and the appeals were dismissed for non-compliance of stay order. In the present appeals, the appellants contended that in two cases, they have handed over the end use certificate to the CHA at Ludhiana to file the same in the office of Commissioner (Appeals). But the CHA did not file the same. Subsequently, they procured the certificate from the CHA, which was filed with the present appeals. In Appeal No.C/08 of 2009, it is contended that they are trying to procure the end-use certificate.
2. I find that in the two appeals, the appellants already procured the end-use certificate, which was not produced before the Commissioner (Appeals) due to negligence of the CHA. In view of that, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and all the matters are remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the stay applications after verifying the end-use certificate. The appeals are allowed by way of remand. The stay applications are disposed of.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court).
(P.K. Das) Member (Judicial) Ckp 1