Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cc, New Delhi vs Shri Jaspreet Singh Jolly on 28 November, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066.
Date of Hearing : 28.11.2013
Appeal No. C/520/2008 with CO/119/2009
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 24/2008 dated 24.3.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi)
CC, New Delhi Appellants/Applicants
Vs.
Shri Jaspreet Singh Jolly Respondent
Appearance Shri V.P. Batra, A.R. - Appeared for appellant None - Appeared for respondent Coram: Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Honble Shri Manmohan Singh,Technical Member Final Order No. 58626/2013 Per D.N. Panda :
None present for the respondent.
2. Shri Batra, ld. A.R. for Revenue submits that the respondent violated policy requirement of importing foreign car. To enjoy policy benefit the import should have been made from the country of manufacture without being from a different country. If the country of manufacture is land locked country, then car can be imported from other countries. In the present case, the car was imported from United Arab Emirates (UAE) which was not a country of manufacture. The country of manufacture was USA. There was total violation of the policy condition by the importer/respondent. The vehicle was manufactured as left hand drive but that was converted into right hand drive and having photometric light and speedometer as per licensing note was to be properly valued. The adjudicating authority ignored these aspects also and adopted the value declared by the respondent.
3. It was grievance of Revenue that for the lapses in the adjudication order, Revenue has been aggrieved and has come in appeal. His submission is that if the grounds of review made by the Committee of Commissioners is considered in remand, Revenue may not be prejudiced. Shri Batra ld. DR for Revenue further submits that against a difference of opinion on the similar facts and circumstances, by an elaborate order, the third Member in the case of Mangilipalli Pradeep Ramu Vs. CC 2013 (297) ELT 100 (Tri.-Del.) has brought out the position of law in regard to such circumstances which should also be take care in the remand proceedings.
4. Ld. DR further submits that this respondent as a regular importer of car was before Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of CC Vs. Jaspreet Singh Jolly 2013 (288) ELT 379 (Del.) against Revenues appeal contending reduction of redemption fine and penalty by Tribunal was justified. But failed in such contention and Revenue succeeded. Lastly ld. DR submitted that when the car did not come from country of manufacture, that became second hand goods and an import violating policy norms. Such aspect may also weigh consideration in the mind of ld adjudicating authority for proper consideration without mild dose of penalty and redemption fine since the car was confiscable. Therefore ld. Commissioner is also expected to take into consideration the ratio laid down in that judgement.
5. In view of aforesaid fair submissions of Revenue, to grant fair opportunity of hearing to the respondent confronting grounds of the review by the Committee of Commissioners, the matter is remitted to the ld. Adjudicating authority, who upon hearing the appellant, shall pass appropriate order. We make it clear that the grounds of review should be paid due regard by ld. Adjudicating authority and also to the aforesaid decisions while reaching to his conclusion. For no new goods of appeal the cross-objections is dismissed.
(Dictated & pronounced in open Court)
(Manmohan Singh) (D.N. Panda)
Technical Member Judicial Member
RM
3