Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Vimla Ramesh Shah And Mahavir ... vs Commissioner Of Customs on 29 June, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(177)ELT295(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. After hearing both sides for some time on the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 2,55,890/- (in both the appeals) confirmed as a result of denial of benefit of Notification 11/97-Cus on the ground that the goods imported have been opined to be not suitable for use in insole making, by the CLRI, we find that it was possible decide the appeals themselves at this stage and hence proceed to do so with the consent of both sides after waiving pre-deposit.
2. We find that the importers had raised the plea that the goods about which the CLRI has given its opinion in July, 1997 were different from the goods imported by them for the reason that, while the CLRI report is in respect of flock fabrics, the Deputy Chief Chemist's report in respect of the goods imported by them is that "the sample is in the form of light brown colour flexible sheets made of base woven fabrics of cotton on one side and blended spun yarn of polyester and viscose on the other side and coated/laminated by one side by polyurethane." This plea was raised by the appellants in the reply of October, 2000 and January, 2001 but neither the adjudicating authority nor the lower appellate authority specifically given any finding on the basic submission regarding whether the goods imported are the ones on which CLRI has given its opinion. Unless this issue is first determined the question of further deciding whether the benefit under the notification has to be extended or not obviously cannot arise. We therefore set aside the impugned orders and remand the cases to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision on all aspects. He shall first pronounce upon the plea that the goods covered by the CLRI report are different from the goods imported by the appellants herein, thereafter give his decision whether the benefit of the notification is available to the importers or not. Fresh orders shall be passed after extending a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants.
3. The appeals are thus allowed by remand.
(Dictated in the Court)