Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Ketan Pharma vs Commissioner Of Customs (Import), Acc, ... on 17 December, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. I Application No. C/EH/94785/13 in Appeal No. C/86597/13 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 23/M-III/2013 dated 11.1.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-III). For approval and signature: Honble Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Honble Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) ======================================================
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 : Yes 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?
====================================================== M/s Ketan Pharma Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), ACC, Mumbai Respondent Appearance:
Shri N.D. George, Advocate for Appellant Shri K.S. Mishra, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for Respondent CORAM:
SHRI P.R. CHANDRASEKHARAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing: 17.12.2013 Date of Decision: 17.12.2013 ORDER NO.
Per: P.R. Chandrasekharan An early hearing application has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 23/M-III/2013 dated 11.1.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-III.
2. Vide the impugned order, the lower appellate authority has directed the appellant M/s Ketan Pharma to approach the learned adjudicating authority, who shall pass a speaking order as per Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. The grievance of the appellant is that in spite of the said direction, the learned adjudicating authority has not passed the speaking order and hence, they are before us.
3. We have gone through the file and observed that there is no fault in lower appellate authority directing the adjudicating authority to pass a speaking order with regard to denial of benefit of exemption claimed by the appellant in Bill of Entry. If the adjudicating authority has not followed this direction, the remedy lies in taking up the matter with the jurisdictional Executive Commissioner. This Tribunal being an appellate authority does not have authority to control the functioning of the customs officer in a particular commissionerate.
4. Therefore, the appeal is not maintainable and is dismissed as such.
(Dictated and pronounced in Court) (Anil Choudhary) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Judicial) Member (Technical) Sinha 1