Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Bishen Saroop Ram Kishan Agro Products ... vs Commissioner Of Customs ... on 30 October, 2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH CHENNAI S.No. Appeal Appellant Respondent
1. C/41011/2013 Bishen Saroop Ram Kishan Agro Products (P) Ltd. Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Export), Chennai
2. C/41014/2013 Alto Polymers Pvt. Ltd. CC (Seaport-Export) Chennai
3. C/41017/2013 Kamdhenu Polymers Pvt.Ltd. CC (Seaport-Export) Chennai
4. C/41020/2013 Tarajyot Polymers Ltd. CC (Seaport-Export)
5. C/41021/2013 Tarajyot Polymers Ltd. Chennai
6. C/41022/2013 P.P. Products Pvt. Ltd. CC (Seaport-Export)
7. C/41024/2013 P.P. Products Pvt. Ltd. Chennai
8. C/41010/2013 Samarth Corporation CC (Seaport-Export)
9. C/41012/2013 Sybex Corporation Chennai
10. C/41013/2013 Taha Trading Corporation CC (Seaport-Export)
11. C/41015/2013 Pradeep Industrial Packers (P) Ltd. Chennai
12. C/41016/2013 Samarth Corporation CC (Seaport-Export)
13. C/41018/2013 Kamdhenu Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Chennai
14. C/41019/2013 Kamdhenu Polymers Pvt. Ltd. CC (Seaport-Export)
15. C/41023/2013 Tarajyot Polymers Ltd. CC (Seaport-Export)
16. C/41025/2013 Shyam Textiles Ltd. Chennai [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.410-427/2013 dt. 14.3.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai] For approval and signature :
Honble Shri P.K. Das, Judicial Member Honble Shri Mathew John, Technical Member
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see 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 the Members wish to see the fair copy of the order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities ? :
Appearance:
Shri B.N.Gururaj, Advocate For the Appellant Shri P. Arul, Supdt.(AR) For the Respondent CORAM :
Honble Shri P.K. Das, Judicial Member Honble Shri Mathew John, Technical Member Date of Hearing : 30-10-2013 Date of Decision : 30-10-2013 FINAL ORDER No.40512-40527/2013 Per P.K. Das By stay order No.42094-42109/2013 dt. 22.8.2013, the applicants were directed to make pre-deposit as recorded in para-4 & 5 which is reproduced below :- 4. We have considered the submissions on both sides and the various tabulations given by the applicants regarding duty liability in respect of bills of entry filed after the amendment, which is shown in the following table:-
Sl.No. Appellant B/E before amendment B/E filed around 15 days from amendment B/E filed after amendment Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (Amount in Rs.) 01 Samarth 15,25,952 15,25,952 02
-do-
3,62,822 3,62,822 03 BSRK 74,623 74,623 04 Sybex 1,67,462 1,67,462 05 Taha 15,33,314 15,33,314 06 Alto 3,25,043 3,25,043 07 Pradeep 43,778 43,778 08 Kamdhenu 11,14,318 11,14,318 09
-do-
21,98,069 21,98,069 10
-do-
68,352 68,352 11 Tarajyot 1,22,984 1,22,984 12
-do-
5,18,188 10,91,519 16,09,707 13
-do-
26,58,133 26,58,133 14 PP Prod 2,14,540 15,27,206 2,41,754 19,83,500 15
-do-
15,95,477 7,06,999 23,02,476 16 Shyam Tex.
2,05,077 2,05,077 Total 1,12,14,148 29,43,768 21,37,694 1,62,95,610
5. Considering the above information furnished by the applicants, we direct each of the parties at S.Nos.3, 6, 8, 12, 14 and 15 in the table above to make pre-deposit of the sum of the amounts shown in Cols. 4 & 5 against each of the respective applicant (For clarity PP Product to make deposit of Rs. 2475959) , within a period of eight weeks from today and report compliance on 30th October, 2013. Upon compliance with the orders both the parties are at liberty to mention the matter for further disposal of the appeal itself. Subject to such pre-deposit, balance dues arising from the impugned orders are waived and its collection stayed till the disposal of all the sixteen appeals. To report compliance on 30th October, 2013.
2. Ld. advocate submits that the respective applicants who were ordered to predeposit have complied with the stay order. It is also contended that all these 16 appeals may be taken up for hearing as the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed for non-compliance of stay order.
3. After considering the submissions of both sides, we take up the appeals for disposal. We find that 16 appeals were filed against the impugned order and all the appeals were dismissed for non-compliance of the stay order by Commissioner (Appeals). By stay order dt. 22.8.2013, the Tribunal directed some of the applicants to make predeposit as mentioned in the table above.
4. Today, the matters are listed for noting compliance of stay order. Accordingly, we directed the Registry to call for other 9 appeals to put in todays list for disposal. Accordingly, all these 16 appeals are taken up for disposal.
5. On a perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals for non-compliance of the stay order without going into the merit. The applicants already complied with stay order passed by the Tribunal. As such, it is appropriate that the matter should be remanded back to the Commissioner (appeals) to decide the matter afresh on merit without insisting any further deposit in all these 16 appeals.
6. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside in respect of all these 16 appeals and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (appeals) to decide appeals afresh after giving proper opportunity of hearing. Thus, all the appeals are allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (MATHEW JOHN) (P.K.DAS) TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER gs 2