Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Amforge Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Ep), Mumbai on 17 October, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPEAL No. C/196/01-Mum (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 854/2000/CAC/CC/SPSP dated 18.9.2000 passed by Commissioner of Customs (EP), Mumbai) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, 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 :
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?
====================================================== Amforge Industries Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Customs (EP), Mumbai Respondent Appearance: Shri T. Viswanathan, Advocate, for appellant Shri P.M. Saleem, Commissioner (AR), for respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 17.10.2013 Date of Decision: 17.10.2013 ORDER NO Per: P.K. Jain
The appellant has filed this appeal along with a stay petition in 2001. In December 2001, a letter was received from the appellant indicating that the stay petition as also the appeal are pending for disposal. The Registry could not locate the appeal papers and thereafter the appeal was reconstructed after confirmation from the Custom House that the appeal/stay has not been disposed of.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Since the matter is in a short compass, we are disposing of the main appeal itself. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant demanding duty of Rs.1,14,93,027/- in respect of advance licence No. 0303526 dated 23.3.1992. The demand was confirmed on the grounds that the appellant has availed modvat credit on the inputs and duty free clearance was made under Notification No. 203/92-Cus. dated 19.5.1992. It appears that the appellant replied to the said show cause notice vide their letter dated 8.3.1999 received in the Custom House on some date in March 1999, wherein they contested the show cause notice on the grounds that the imports were not made under value based licences but on the quantity based licences and the goods were cleared under Notification No.204/92 and not under 203/92 and under the relevant Notification there is no such restriction. They also claimed that all the goods were used in the manufacturing process in their own factory and the resulting products were exported. However, it appears that the said letter was not connected and the impugned order was passed on 18.9.2000 without taking into account the said letter. It appears that the case was posted for personal hearing on 15.9.2000 and nobody appeared for the personal hearing.
4. In view of the fact that the appellant has produced a xerox copy of the reply sent to the Custom House, which had been received in the Custom House and the said reply has not been taken into account while passing the impugned order, we consider it a fit case to set aside the order and remand the matter to the original authority to examine the matter afresh keeping in view the reply of the appellant as also various case laws on the subject. In view of the fact that the import had taken place in February 1994 and it is more than 19 years the matter is pending, the Custom House may decide the case expeditiously and the appellant also is directed to co-operate in providing the copies of the relevant reply, import licence, advance licence etc. as required by the Custom House. The appeal is allowed by way of remand in above terms.
(Operative part pronounced in Court) (S.S. Kang) Vice President (P.K. Jain) Member (Technical) tvu 1 2