Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Prem Watch Co. vs Commissioner Of Customs on 20 October, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001(127)ELT823(TRI-DEL)
ORDER K.K. Bhatia, Member (T)
1. The brief facts of this case are that the Officers of Customs (Preventive), Jaipur conducted search of the premises of the appellants on 24-4-1997. On search, Digital watch modules, Quartz watch modules, Watch dials and Wrist watches of foreign origin totally amounting to Rs. 92,700/- were recovered. The goods were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The proceedings were initiated against the appellants which culminated in Addl. Commissioner of Customs, Jodhpur passing the Order-in-Original dated 16-4-1999. The adjudicating authority in this order directed for dropping of the proceedings initiated against the appellants.
2. Agrieved with the above order of the Addl. Commissioner of Customs, the Department filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur. The Commissioner (Appeals) on evaluation of the evidence before him vide his order dated 20-6-2000, set aside the order passed by the original authority and remanded the matter back to the concerned authority for de novo adjudication.
3. M/s. Prem Watch Company have filed the present appeal against the above order of Commissioner (Appeals). The matter is listed for considering the Stay Petition filed by the appellants. Shri A.L. Mathur, ld. Consultant appearing for the appellants is raising only one point that on the appeal of the Revenue, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have decided the matter himself instead of remanding the matter to the original authority for de novo consideration. On specific querry during the course of hearing, the ld. Consultant stated that he is not contesting the competence of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the matter to the original authority. He however, relied on the decision in Anand Kumar Gupta v. C.C. Mumbai reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 407 (Tribunal) in which, it is held that the appeal of the Department before Commissioner (Appeals) against the order of Addl. Collector for enhancement of redemption fine and penalty should have been decided by the appellate authority himself.
4. Shri Rajeev Tondon, ld. SDR appearing for the Respondents submitted that in terms of Section 128A(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, the Commissioner (Appeals) is competent to pass such order, as he thinks fit confirming, modifying or annulling the decision of the order or decision appealed against, or may refer the case back to the adjudicating authority with such direction as he may think fit for fresh adjudication or decision.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me. As already stated, the appeal in this case is filed against the direction of Commissioner (Appeals) remanding the case to the original authority for de novo adjudication on the appeal filed by Department. As rightly contended by the Revenue side, the Commissioner (Appeals) is perfectly within his rights to remand the case for de novo adjudication with such directions as he deems fit. In the decision in Anand Kumar Gupta (supra), the ld. Single Member of the Tribunal constituting the Bench has held that in the case of an appeal filed by the Revenue requesting for enhancement of penalty fine, the Commissioner (Appeals) should himself pass an appropriate order after putting the respondent on notice. The facts in the present case however are different. Here the appeal of Revenue before Commissioner (Appeals) was not for either enhancing the penalty or fine. This decision does not therefore help the case of the appellants. Consequently, I find no force in this appeal. Their Stay Petition is rejected. Since all submissions made by the appellants are fully discussed in this order, their appeal is also taken up for final disposal and the same is also rejected.