Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Galiakotwala Technical Services vs Commissioner Of Customs, Jnch, Nhava ... on 15 November, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. II Appeal No. C/1055/05 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 216/2005 dated 22.6.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), JNCH, Nhava Sheva, Mumbai-II). For approval and signature: Honble Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Raju, 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 : 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 Galiakotwala Technical Services Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Customs, JNCH, Nhava Sheva Respondent Appearance: Shri Mayur Shroff, Advocate for Appellant Shri D.K. Sinha, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) for Respondent CORAM: SHRI RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) SHRI RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing: 31.08.2016 Date of Decision: 15.11.2016 ORDER NO. Per: Raju
The appeal has been filed by the appellant, M/s Galiakotwala Technical Services, against whom proceedings were initiated by GATT Valuation Cell. The original adjudicating authority, after examining the agreement, came to a conclusion that the transaction value declared by the appellant can be accepted. An appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the supplementary agreement entered between the appellant and the supplier of the goods has not been examined and, therefore, the Order-in-Original should be set aside and the matter should be remanded for reconsideration. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the Revenue. However, there was no mention of remand.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the said supplementary agreement has no influence and has not resulted in any payment to the supplier of the goods. He argued that the impugned order has merely allowed the appeal of the Revenue and has not specifically remanded the issue to the original adjudicating authority.
3. Learned AR relied on the impugned order.
4. We have gone through the rival submissions. We find that the original adjudicating authority has examined the issue without going into the supplementary agreement. Revenue had appealed to Commissioner (Appeals) mainly on the ground that the Order-in-Original has been passed without considering the supplementary agreement and, therefore, the matter should be remanded. Consequently, when the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the Revenue, which in fact resulted in the demand. We find that the supplementary agreement has not been examined by original adjudicating authority nor by the first appellate authority and, therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order after taking into consideration all the supplementary agreements and all other documents produced. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Pronounced in Court on 15.11.2016)
(Ramesh Nair) (Raju)
Member (Judicial) Member (Technical)
Sinha
3
Appeal No. C/1055 /05