Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Kumars Automobiles & Agencies vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 11 August, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No. 21315 / 2014 Application(s) Involved: C/Stay/25735/2013 in C/25546/2013-DB Appeal(s) Involved: C/25546/2013-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 179/2012 dated 22/11/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore] Kumars Automobiles & Agencies No.16, H. Siddaiah Road, Bangalore - 560 027 Karnataka Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Bangalore-I Post Box No. 5400, C.R Buildings, Bangalore 560 001 Karnataka Respondent(s)
Appearance:
None For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagdish, AR For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 11/08/2014 Date of Decision: 11/08/2014 Order Per: B.S.V. MURTHY The appellant is a proprietorship concern and is engaged in trading of motor vehicle/car accessories. The appellant imports the items and sells them in wholesale to the dealers who in turn sell them in retail. On the ground that appellant had declared a lower MRP at the time of import and before selling it to wholesale dealer modified the MRP, proceedings were initiated culminating in confirmation of the demand for duty of Rs. 17,14,163/- with interest and penalty also has been imposed.
2. Nobody is present on behalf of the appellant. We take note of the fact that the matter has been coming up from July 2013 onwards. The matter was listed on 01.07.2013, 11.12.2013, 20.03.2014, 12.06.2014 and on all these occasions nobody was present. Today also no one is present.
3. Heard the learned AR who submits that the appeal has been dismissed for non-compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit by the appellant in the impugned order. He submits that the appellant was asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 18 lakhs to hear the appeal which in view of the fact that appellant had acted in a mala fide manner when they changed the MRP, the amount required to be deposited was reasonable. Only about 33% in addition to customs duty without taking interest into account has been demanded. We consider that Commissioner (Appeals) has decided in a very reasonable manner and therefore the appellant should have deposited the amount. Even though we do not find anything wrong in the Commissioners order, yet in the interest of justice, we consider it appropriate, that appellant should get another opportunity to present the matter before the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly the appellant is directed to deposit the amount ordered to be deposited by the Commissioner within 8 weeks and report compliance to the Commissioner (Appeals) who shall after noting compliance decide the matter afresh. It is made clear that if the appellants did not deposit the duty within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order and report compliance within 3 months from the date of this order, failing which, if the Commissioner issues an order dismissing the appeal, that will be considered as final and there shall be no further interference by this Tribunal and the order-in-original will be considered as upheld.
(Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court on 11.08.2014) (S.K. MOHANTY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER iss