Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Prakash Trading Corporation 2. Tulip ... vs Commissioner Of Customs (Imports), ... on 7 January, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI. APPLICATION NO.C/S/1757 to 1761/07 In APPEAL NO. C/1068 to 1072/07-Mum (Arising out of Order-in-appeal No.240(II C & D) 2007 (JNCH) dated 29.8.2007 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Nhavasheva ) For approval and signature: Shri M.V.Ravindran, Honble Member (Judicial) Shri K.K.Agarwal, Honble Member (Technical) ======================================================
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? ====================================================== 1. Prakash Trading Corporation 2. Tulip Trading Co. 3. M/s. Mansi Tex 4. M/s. C.D.Corporation 5. M/s. S.A.Inc Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Nhavasheva Respondent Appearance: Shri. Prakash Shah Advocate For Appellant Shri P.K.Katiyar SDR For Respondent CORAM: Shri M.V.Ravindran, Honble Member (Judicial) Shri K.K.Agarwal, Honble Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 7.1.2008 Date of Decision : 7.1.2008 O R D E R NO. Per : Shri M.V.Ravindran, Member (Judicial):
1. All these stay applications are directed against order-in-appeal No.240(II C & D) 2007 (JNCH) dated 29.8.2007 upholding confirmation of demand of duty. Since all these stay applications and appeals are arising out of same order-in-appeal, they are being disposed off by a common order.
2. After hearing for some time both sides on the stay application, we find that the appeals itself can be decided at this stage, hence after granting waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved, we take up the appeals itself for disposal.
3. Ld. counsel appearing for all the appellants submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered their pleas / arguments made on the grounds of appeal as regards contemporaneous imports made by them and also it is their submission that the contemporaneous imports relied upon by the adjudicating authority were not comparable. It was also submitted that the order-in-original was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and there are no findings as to that.
4. Ld. SDR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).
5. On perusal of the order-in-appeal we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has noted that the appellants were not issued any notice nor there was personal hearing granted. Commissioner (Appeals) also noticed that the appellants have filed details of contemporaneous imports. Despite this Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered nor has given any finding on these submissions. We also find strong force in the contention of the Commissioner (Appeals) that contemporaneous imports as relied upon the adjudicating authority is not of the same period. As such, we find that the entire order-in-appeal is a non-speaking one and needs to be set aside and we do so. The impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afreash, after granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants. At this stage ld. counsel for the appellants submits that the less charge demand notice is not received by them. We direct the adjudicating authority to serve less charge demand notice to the appellants. The appellants are also directed to cooperate with the authorities during the course of personal hearing. Appeals are allowed by way of remand to adjudicating authority.
(Pronounced and dictated in the court) (K.K.AGARWAL) Member (Technical) (M.V.RAVINDRAN) Member(Judicial) .ts. 10106807070108MM