Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Customs vs Foods Fats And Fertilizers Ltd on 23 January, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.C/SO/306/08 & C/393/08
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.C.Cus.No.362/2008 dated 24.9.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
Honble Mr. P.KARTHIKEYAN, Member (Technical)
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? :
Commissioner of Customs,
Chennai
Appellant/s
Versus
Foods Fats and Fertilizers Ltd.
Respondent/s
Appearance :
Shri V.V.Hariharan, JCDR Shri Muthuvenkatraman, Advocate Shri M.N.Bharathi, Advocate For the Appellant/s For the Respondent/s CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Mr. P. Karthikeyan, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 23.1.2009 Date of decision : 23.1.2009 Final Order No.____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram We have heard on the application for stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) for sometime, we found it is possible to decide the appeal itself at this stage in the face of the fact that the lower appellate authority has relied upon decisions of the Tribunal in coming to his conclusion ; we dismiss the application for stay as we find that no prima facie case has been made out by the Revenue.
2. Coming to the appeal itself, we find that the lower appellate authority has relied upon decisions of the Tribunal reported in 2008 (221) ELT 236 in the case of Teej Impex Ltd. Vs CC Nhava Sheva and 2007 (213) ELT 340 (Tri.-Mumbai) in the case of Raghuvar (India) Ltd. Vs CC (Import), Nhava Sheva to come to the conclusion that the importers can be allowed to reprocess the imported goods namely Shea Stearine and re-export the same. However, the grievance of the Revenue is that the lower appellate authority has permitted re-export after reprocessing without insisting that the goods be tested while in the Tribunal decisions cited supra, testing was also insisted upon before re-export. We, therefore accept the prayer of the Revenue that the goods after reprocessing are required to be tested and, if found fit for home consumption, re-export is to be permitted.
3. The appeal is thus allowed in the above terms.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(P.KARTHIKEYAN) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
MEMBER (T) VICE-PRESIDENT
gs
1
2