Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Jinabakul Forge Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Export), ... on 6 March, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPEAL Nos. C/187, 188, 212, 273 to 278/12-Mum (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 691 to 699 (CFS Old Maersk)/2011 (JNCH) EXP 87 to 95 dated 9.12.2011 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), JNCH, Nhava Sheva) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) ======================================================
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 :
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?
====================================================== Jinabakul Forge Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export), Nhava Sheva Respondent Appearance: Shri A.R.J. Nayak, Advocate, for appellant Shri M.S. Reddy, Deputy Commissioner (AR), for respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 6.3.2014 Date of Decision: 6.3.2014 ORDER NO Per: S.S. Kang
Common issue is involved, therefore the appeals are being taken up together. The appellant filed these appeals against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed nine shipping bills in respect of the goods which were declared as alloy steel forgings (machine) and claimed the classification under Customs Tariff Chapter 73 with DEPB benefit under serial No. 68B as alloy steel forgings. The Revenue rejected the claim of the appellants and the lower authority held that the goods in question are to be assessed as bearing races and entitled for DEPB benefit at serial No.428.
3. The issue involved in these appeals is only whether the goods in question are bearing races or the same are alloy steel forgings (machine). The adjudicating authority, on visual examination, held that the item is very smooth and shining and the same is bearing races. On appeals filed by the appellants, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellants did not insist for examination of the impugned goods by any machinery experts or by any chartered engineer to establish their claim.
4. During arguments, the appellants relied upon the chartered engineers certificate in support of their claim. We find that the certificate is dated 1.2.2012 i.e. after passing of the impugned order. We find the issue has to be decided whether the goods are bearing races or alloy steel forgings (machine), on visual examination by the adjudicating authority and the appellants also not produced any technical literature or expert opinion in support of their claim. In these circumstances, we find the matter requires reconsideration by the adjudicating authority afresh. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. Needless to say that the adjudicating authority is at liberty to go for any expert opinion. The appeals are disposed of by way of remand.
(Dictated in Court) (P.K. Jain) Member (Technical) (S.S. Kang) Vice President tvu 1 2