Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Customs vs M/S.Patiala Castings Pvt. Ltd on 3 June, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. II Customs Appeal Nos. 2090-2094 of 2012 Cus [DB] Customs Cross objection Application No. 4160 of 2012 - Cus[DB] [Arising out of Order-in-Review No. 02/2012-2013 dated 25.6.12 and 01/2012-2013 dated 21.6.12 both passed by Committee of Chief Commissioners of Customs, New Delhi] Commissioner of Customs Appellants Amritsar Vs. M/s.Patiala Castings Pvt. Ltd. Respondent
Shri Gurdeep Singh, Director Shri Vikram Singh, Director M/s. Dutt Multimetals, Shri Rakesh Bansal, Director Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Puri, AR for the Appellants None for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. D N Panda, Judicial Member Hon'ble Mr. R K Singh, Technical Member Date of Hearing and decision: 3.06.2014 ORDER NO. SO/ 52441-52445/2014-Cus(BR) Per D N Panda (for the Bench):
The respondents are absent despite notice of hearing being issued. That has come back unserved. The appeals being on similar cause were heard analogues and disposed of by this common order.
2. Revenue is against the order passed by learned Commissioner who has held in his order dated 1.5.2002 that the goods imported by the appellant were metallic scrap but not serviceable pipes. Accordingly, he dropped the proceedings against the assessee.
3. Revenue says today that it is aggrieved because learned Commissioner did not examine the facts of the case. If grounds of appeal is to be considered that will speak merits of the case of the Revenue.
3. Ld. Adjudicating Authority relied on the report of local Commissioner who was Professor and Head of Metallurgical Engineering Department PEC Chandigarh since that was relied by the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court and held that the goods imported were scrap but not serviceable pipe.
4. Revenues dispute commenced from the point of classification of the goods at the stage of provisional release. The conflict between the report of chartered engineer and the Commissioner appointed by Honble High Court was that the former held that 85% of the pipes were unused while the commissioner appointed by Honble High Court held otherwise. That no more remained in conflict when Honble High Court adopted report of local commissioner to hold in favour of respondents.
5. Without dilating the matter further, the controversy having been resolved by the local Commissioner as above, there remains no further controversy to entertain the appeals of Revenue. Therefore, all five appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, so also the cross objection disposed.
(Dictated and Pronounced in the open court)
(R K Singh) (D N Panda) Technical Member Judicial Member
ss
2
C/2090-2094/2012
C/Cross/4160/2012
C/COD/4424/2012