Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commr. Of Customs (Port), Kolkata vs M/S Hi-Tech K K Manufacturing Company on 2 August, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, EAST REGIONAL BENCH : KOLKATA
Cus.Appeal No.24/10
Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.Kol/Cus/CKP/625/09 dated 26.10.09 passed by Commr. of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata.
For approval and signature :
SHRI S. S. KANG, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT
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 His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy
of the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
Commr. of Customs (Port), Kolkata
APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
M/s Hi-Tech K K Manufacturing Company
RESPONDENT (S)
APPEARANCE Shri R. K. Chakraborty, SDR for the Department Shri Vijay Prahladka, Advocate for the Respondent (s) CORAM:
SHRI S. S. KANG, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT Date of hearing & decision : 02.08.2010 ORDER NO.. Per Shri S. S. Kang :
Heard both sides. The Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the interest to the present respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals) also directed the adjudicating authority to look into the eligibility in respect of DEPB claims. The contention of the Revenue is that the present respondents claimed the refund of SAD as per Notification 102/07-Cus dated 14.9.2007. The respondents paid the duty at the time of clearance of the goods and thereafter, filed the refund claim in pursuance to the Notification 102/07-Cus on the ground that they have fulfilled the condition imposed under the Notification. The contention of the Revenue is that under the Notification, there is no provision for interest on the refund amount. Therefore, the grant of interest is not sustainable.
2. In respect of credit under DEPB claim, the contention is that the respondents failed to produce the necessary DEPB scripts, therefore, is not entitled for the credit.
3. The respondents supported the impugned order.
4. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the respondent is entitled if eligible for re-credit under the DEPB Licence dated 7.11.06. As the Commissioner (Appeals) left open the issue regarding eligibility of credit to the adjudicating authority, therefore, the issue is yet to be decided whether the respondent is entitled for such credit.
5. In this regard, I find no infirmity in the impugned order.
6. In respect of interest, the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the adjudicating authority to pay interest to the respondents as per law. The contention is that the refund is in pursuance to the provision of Notification 102/07-Cus and there is no provision for interest on the refund. In view of this, I modify the impugned order to the extent that the adjudicating authority will decide the issue of interest afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondents. The appeal is disposed off as indicated above. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) Sd/ (S. S. KANG) VICE PRESIDENT mm 3 Cus. Appeal No.24/10