Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cc (Preventive), New Delhi vs M/S Spice Mobiles Limited on 28 October, 2015
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No.2, R. K. Puram, New Delhi, Court No. 1 Date of hearing/decision: 28.10.2015 For Approval and Signature: Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President Honble Mr. C. J. Mathew, Member (Technical) 1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of 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? Customs Appeal No. 13 of 2010 (Arising out of order-in-appeal No.CC(A) CUS/I&G/233/09 dated 06.11.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Custom House, New Delhi). CC (Preventive), New Delhi Appellant Vs. M/s Spice Mobiles Limited Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Satyaveer Singh, Chief Commissioner (AR) for the appellant Shri S. Vasudevan, Advocate for the Respondent Coram: Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President Honble Mr. C. J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 53268/ 2015 Per: Justice G. Raghuram:
Appeal is preferred against the order dated 06.11.2009 of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. The impugned order rejected Revenues appeal preferred against the primary adjudication order dated 28.08.2009, to the extent the order directed recovery of the demurrage on goods of the respondent which were seized, from Shri Ram Kumar, on whose complaint proceedings were initiated for confiscation of imported goods and imposition of duty and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. The primary adjudication order further directed that such demurrage charges should be reimbursed to the respondent but could be recovered from Shri Ram Kumar. The impugned order did not find any infirmity that the order passed by the primary adjudicating authority, in an appeal preferred by Revenue.
2. In an identical matrix of facts, presented in Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi vs. Brightpoint India Pvt. Limited 2015-TIOL-1840-CESTAT-DEL, Revenue appeal was dismissed. For the detailed analyses and reasons stated in the above judgment, we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(Justice G. Raghuram) President (C. J. Mathew) Member (Technical) Pant