Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
4. Whether Order Is To Be Circulated To ... vs M/S Usms Saffron Co on 2 September, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT AHMEDABAD
COURT - I
Appeal No.C/12781/2014-DB (Application No.C/Early Hearing/14863/2014)
Arising out of: OIO No.VIII-48-203/ACC/Prev/2014/487, dt.13.06.14
Passed by: Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad
For approval and signature:
Mr.M.V. Ravindran, Honble Member (Judicial)
Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble 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?
Appellant:
M/s USMS Saffron Co.
Respondent:
CC Ahmedabad Represented by:
For Assessee: Shri Hardik Modh, Adv. (i/b Shri Piyush Thakkar, Adv.) For Revenue: Shri Jitendra Nair, Superintendent (AR) CORAM:
MR.M.V. RAVINDRAN, HONBLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MR. H.K. THAKUR, HONBLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing/Decision: 02.09.2014 Order No. A/11572 / 2014, dt.02.09.2014 Per: M.V. Ravindran
1. This application has been filed for out of turn hearing of Appeal No.C/12781/2014. After hearing both sides for some time we find that the application as well as the appeal needs urgent consideration of the Bench as the good involved is saffron which is perishable in nature. Accordingly, we allow the application for out of turn hearing of the appeal and take up the appeal itself for disposal.
2. Ld.Counsel draws our attention to a letter No.VIII/48-203/ ACC/Prev/2014/676, dt.11.07.2013 addressed to the appellant as regards the import consignment of saffron under Bill of Entry No.5243266, dt.19.04.2014. It is his submission that the Departmental authorities have not cleared the consignment even after producing DFIA licence to the authorities and also the order of first appellate authority in Order-in-Appeal No.131/Mumbai-III/2010, dt.20.12.2010 and Order-in-Appeal No.951(Gr.VII-I)/2013(JNCH)/ EXP-221, dt.04.10.2013 in the appellants own case as regards import of saffron against DFIA licence. It is his submission that both the orders of the first appellate authority have been accepted by the Department and there is no appeal filed and despite this the Customs authorities are directing the appellant to clear the consignment by executing PD Bond, Bank Guarantee for 20% of the duty leviable, Bank Guarantee for 5% to cover redemption fine and personal penalty.
3. Ld.D.R. reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority.
4. On careful consideration of the submissions made, we find that the appellant has imported a consignment of saffron by filing a Bill of Entry dt.19.04.2014 and claimed the benefit of DFIA licence. We also find from record that the appellant has produced the orders of first appellate authority which were in their own cases in two different Customs office i.e. Nhava Sheva and Mumbai Customs. Despite of such orders on an identical issue in respect of very same assessee, Commissioner of Customs Ahmedabad has directed the appellant to clear the consignment by executing PD Bond, Bank Guarantee for 20% of the duty leviable, Bank Guarantee for 5% to cover redemption fine and personal penalty. In our considered view, this letter dt.11.07.2013 (seems to be wrong date) in appeal before us is incorrect and is liable to be set aside as provisional assessment of imported consignment of saffron that also on an issue when appellate authorities in two cases have held in favour of the appellant. At this juncture, we find the impugned order directing provisional assessment of the goods needs to be set aside and we do so, and direct the Revenue authorities to release consignments of saffron seized to the appellant within three days of production of a copy of this order by accepting DFIA licence.
5. At the same time, we also hold that the Revenue is at liberty for considering issuance of show cause notice on this issue if they deem it fit and are advised to do so.
(Dictated & Pronounced in Court) (H.K. Thakur) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) cbb ??
??
??
??
3