Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Customs (Export), Jnch ... vs M/S Novamed Pharma Private Ltd on 19 June, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVECE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. IV APPEAL NO. C/87174/13-Mum (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 732 (JWC-CFS)/2012/JNCH/EXP-121 dated 13.12.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), JNCH Nhavasheva.) For approval and signature: Honble Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) =====================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
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 : Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen
of the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
=====================================================
Commissioner of Customs (Export), JNCH Nhavasheva
: Appellant
Versus
M/s Novamed Pharma Private Ltd.
: Respondent
Appearance
Shri M.K. Sarangi, Dy. Commr. (A.R.)
: For Appellant
Absent on call
: For Respondent
CORAM:
HONBLE SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Date of Hearing : 19.06.2015 Date of Decision: 19.06.2015
ORDER NO.......................................................
Per: Anil Choudhary:
The Revenue is in appeal against order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 13/12/2012 wherein the order denying them passed by the Asst. Commissioner was set aside being without jurisdiction.
2. The brief facts are that the respondent M/s Novamed Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Mumai had filed four shipping bills dated 11/7/2011 through the CHA caravel Logistics Pvt. Ltd. for exporting the goods to Kazkhstan. That the goods were carted in on 12/7/11 at the JWCCFS by the exporter and the CHA. The exporter had claimed DEPB for tablets Bells Lozenges, Xeropen tablets and Naxocam tablets. On the basis of documents produced by the JWCCFS staff it indicated that the goods were carted long before i.e. nearly 20 days prior to filing of the shipping bills. Further the total quantity brought inside the CFS by the exporter, without shipping bill being 3371 packages, whereas the endorsement given by the custodian indicated 3133 packages. The exporter informed that due to typographical mistake, the difference occurred the general manager of the exporter respondent accepted the mistake of claiming undue DEPB and requested for amendment of the DEPB shipping bills to free shipping bills. The case was adjudicated and the goods medicines valued at Rs. 52,83,890/- comprising of the four shipping bills were confiscated under Section 113(i) read with Section 50(2) of the Act and 125 packages which were in excess of those included in the four shipping bills were confiscated under Section 113(h) of the Customs Act. Further option to redeem was allowed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- and further penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed under section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, both on the respondent-exporter & CHA. Further the respondent-exporter was allowed to amend the shipping bill.
3. The Revenue preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the Asst. Commissioner adjudicating authority erred in passing the Order-in-Original as provided in Section 122 of the Act, where jurisdiction is Limited to the value of the goods liable to confiscation being not more than Rs. 2 lakhs. As the value of the goods is more than Rs. 2 lakhs, the order passed by the Asst. Commissioner was wholly without jurisdiction. The respondent-exporter had not appeared and by exparte order the learned Commissioner found that the order passed by the Asst. Commissioner is without jurisdiction and accordingly he was pleased to set aside the Order-in-Original number 12/2011-12 dated 23/08/2011 and the corrigendum issue dated 5/9/11 passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Customs, JNCH and allow the appeal of the Revenue.
4. The Revenue is in appeal in this Tribunal on the ground that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) have not issued any further directions to the effect that the case may be re-adjudged by proper officer having the appropriate pecuniary jurisdiction and further references been made to Section 128A of the Act and it is stated that the Commissioner (Appeals) was required to pass appropriate order in this regard.
5. The respondent-exporter is absent on call. It is seen that this case is coming on board since November, 2014. The respondent have never appeared. Accordingly the appeal is heard in the absence of the respondent, as there is no time petition for adjournment.
6. Heard learned A.R. for the appellant-Revenue, and pursued the records.
7. Having considered the contentions of the Revenue and on perusal of record, I am satisfied that fresh adjudication order needs to be passed by the proper officer having the pecuniary jurisdiction, which is the natural consequence of the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), setting aside the Order-in-Original for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. Accordingly allowing the appeal of the Revenue, I remand the matter to the Commissioner of Customs having jurisdiction to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing the parties.
8. Thus, the appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Pronounced in open Court) (Anil Choudhary) Member (Judicial) Sp 4