Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Customs (Port), ... vs M/S. Shreeniwas Trading Company on 3 March, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
EAST ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
STAY PETITION NO.C/S/966/2012
AND
CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.C/A/255/2012
(ARISING OUT OF ORDER-IN-APPEAL NO.KOL/CUS/106 & 107/2012 DATED 25.05.2012 PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), KOLKATA)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURES OF
DR. D.M.MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
DR. I.P.LAL, HONBLE 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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :
Authorities?
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT), KOLKATA
APPLICANT COMMISSIONER
VERSUS
M/S. SHREENIWAS TRADING COMPANY
...RESPONDENT(S)
APPEARANCE:
SHRI S.CHAKRABORTY, AR (ASSTT. COMMR.) FOR THE REVENUE;
MISS M.NATH, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT. CORAM:
DR. D.M.MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. I.P.LAL, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER Date of Hearing & Decision: 03.03.2014 ORDER NO.FO/A/75074/2014 Per Dr. D.M.Misra This is an Application filed by the Revenue seeking stay of operation of the impugned Order-in-Appeal No.KOL/CUS/CKP/106 & 107/2012 dated 25.05.2012 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata.
2. At the outset, ld. AR for the Revenue submitted that this Tribunal, vide Order No.S-448/A-188/KOL/2013 dated 09.07.13, in case of CC (Port), Kolkata vs. M/s. Manasi Enterprises (Appeal No.C/A/251/12), had remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for de-novo adjudication. He submits that the issue involved in the present case is also similar to the case of Manasi Enterprises decided by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) under a common order. Accordingly, this case also may be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the issue afresh.
3. Ld. Advocate for the Respondent has no objection in remanding the matter.
4. After hearing both sides, we find that the Appeal itself can be disposed of, at this stage. Accordingly, with the consent of both sides, the Appeal is taken up for disposal. We find that undisputedly, the issue involved in the present case is common to Manasi Enterprises case, and the Order-in-Appeal passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), is also common. We also find that this Tribunal had already remanded the matter in Manasi Enterprises case, vide Order dated 09.07.2013, to the Adjudicating Authority, for decision afresh, on merit. In these circumstances, the present case is also remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for deciding the issue afresh, on similar line, as had been ordered by this Tribunal in Manasi Enterprises case. The Appeal is thus allowed by way of remand. Revenues Stay Petition disposed of.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court.)
Sd/- Sd/-
(I.P.LAL) (D.M.MISRA)
MEMBER(TECHNICAL) MEMBER(JUDICIAL)
DUTTA/
2
C/A/255/2012
2