Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Gujarat State Export Corporation vs Commissioner Of Cus. on 16 August, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(122)ELT632(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. When these stay application was heard, it appeared that the point of law being settled, the main appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. Both sides agreeing, this was done after granting waiver of the pre-deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs imposed as penalty.
2. We have heard Shri V.S. Nankani, Advocate for the applicant and Shri V.K. Choubey, ld. DR for the Revenue.
3. The appellants imported Marble. The Commissioner in the impugned order did not accept the declared value as the correct value. He determined the price at US$ 263 PMT GIF as against the declared value of 83.5 US$. The order passed by him reads as under:
"(i) I order to finalise the Bill of Entry No. F-10 dated 26.06.1995 taking price @ US$ 263 PMT GIF allowing benefit of Notification No. 204/92-Cus. dated 19.05.1992 to 932.08 MTS of the goods and to recover duty at appropriate rate on remaining 117.967 MTS of the goods.
(ii) I impose penalty of Rs. 15,00,0007- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on M/s. Gujarat State Export Corporation, Ahmedbad."
4. Shri V.S. Nankani refers to the following judgments of the Tribunal in support of his statement that where the quantification of demand amount is to be done by the adjudicating authority, but where the job is delegated to a subordinate officer, the order becomes null and void :
(i) Pure Drinks (New Delhi) Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi, 1999 (34) RLT 471 (CEGAT)].
(ii) Indo Asian Marketing Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh [1999 (34) RLT 242 (CEGAT)].
(iii) Standard Industries Ltd. v. Collr. of Central Excise [1995 (75) E.L.T. 829 (Tribuna)].
5. The ratio of these judgments supports the claim made by Shri V.S. Nankani. On the short point of the infirmity in the impugned order, this appeal is allowed. The case is remanded to the Jurisdictional Commissioner to decide the issue afresh and to calculate the duty amount and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to the appellants of being heard.