Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Customs, Kandla vs M/S Bayers Abs Ltd on 25 June, 2015
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad Appeal No.C/385/2010 [Arising out of OIA No.243/2010/Cus/Commr(A)/KDL, dt.22.06.2010, passed by Commissioner of Customs, Kandla] Commissioner of Customs, Kandla Appellant Vs M/s Bayers Abs Ltd. Respondent
Represented by:
For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Nair, Authorised Representative For Respondent: Shri Willingdon Christian, Advocate For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.M. Saleem, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Seen the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?
CORAM:
HONBLE MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HONBLE MR. P.M. SALEEM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing/Decision:25.06.2015 Order No. A/10867/2015, dt.25.06.2015 Per: P.K. Das Revenue filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the Adjudication order was set aside.
2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the Respondents imported Styrene Monomer under Bill of Entry No.13334, dt.08.10.2013 and 14426, dt.04.11.2003, availing the benefit of Notification No.45/2002-Cus, dt.22.04.2002 under DEPB scheme. On subsequent investigation, it was found that the exporter M/s Kanak Metal Industries obtained DEPB licence fraudulently by over-invoicing the value of the export goods. The learned Advocate on behalf of the Respondents submitted that a proceeding was initiated against M/s Kanak Metal Industries. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of M/s Kanak Metal Industries in the said proceeding as reported in 2012 (275) ELT 115 (Tri-Del). Revenue filed the appeal against the order of Tribunal, which was dismissed as reported in 2013 (293) ELT A 25 (SC) (Commissioner Vs Kanak Metal Industries).
3. As the appeal of M/s Kanak Metal Industries was allowed by the Tribunal and upheld by Honble Supreme Court, the allegation against the Respondent cannot survive. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere the order of Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)
(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
cbb
2