Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S. Daechang India Seat Co. Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Import), ... on 28 October, 2014

        

 

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI


C/S/41804/2014 in C/41544/2014

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.C.Cus.No.557/2014, dated 01.04.2014   passed by the Commissioner of  Customs (Appeals), Chennai]

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:	

Honble Shri Pradip Kumar Das,  Judicial Member     :
Honbe Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member : 


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 the Members wish to see the fair copy of
	the Order?								        :
4.	Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
	Authorities?							               :

M/s. Daechang India Seat Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Appellant
         
       Versus

Commissioner of Customs (Import), Chennai

Respondent

Appearance:

Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Adv.
Shri Parmod Kumar, JC(AR) For the Appellant For the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Shri Pradip Kumar Das, Judicial Member Honbe Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member Date of hearing : 28-10-2014 Date of decision : 28-10-2014 FINAL ORDER NO. 40846 / 2014 Per Pradip Kumar Das:
As the issue involved lies in a narrow compass after disposing the stay application, we take up the appeal for hearing.

2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Seat Frames and Seat Frame Assembly from the items imported in CKD condition. The appellant is related to their foreign supplier, namely, M/s. Beijing Daehung Automotive Company Ltd., China and M/s. Daechang Seat Co. Ltd., Korea. Special Valuation Branch took up the matters for valuation of the imported goods. By the Adjudication order, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs finalized the assessment with certain directions. The appellant was aggrieved with the loading of the royalty and filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Revenue also filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) with the prayer to set aside the Adjudication order and to direct the original authority for proper examination of the records and evidence to pass the order as it deem proper. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Adjudication order and rejected the appeal of the appellant. It is seen that the Commissioner (Appeals) by Order-in Appeal No.C.Cus.No.1230/14, dated 21.07.2014 in the appeal of the Revenue disposed with the following submissions:-

Since, a decision had been already made by me in the above referred order on the issue raised by the Department in their present appeal, the same cannot be dealt with once again as I became functus officio as held by various judicial forum. In view of the above facts and discussion, since the issue has been already decided by me, the present Department appeal is treated as closed. Ordered accordingly.

3. We find that the learned Advocate has a grievance against the impugned order on various reasons insofar as the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order beyond the scope of the Adjudication order. We have perused the appeal of the Revenue filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). It is seen that the Revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) for setting aside the Adjudication order and remand the matter to the Adjudicating authority. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the appeal filed by the Revenue before Commissioner (Appeals), we find that it is appropriate that the matter should be re-examined by the Adjudicating authority.

4. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and the matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating authority to decide afresh after considering the evidence and the submissions of both sides. Needless to say that the Adjudicating authority shall give adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. Stay application is disposed of.

	(Dictated and pronounced in open court)




          (R. PERIASAMI)	                              (PRADIP KUMAR DAS)    
     TECHNICAL  MEMBER                           JUDICIAL  MEMBER                   



  ksr

















DRAFT
Remarks

I
II
III

Date of dictation 
28.10.2014








Draft Order - Date of typing
28.10.2014








Fair Order Typing
17.11.2014








Date of number and date of dispatch










2
C/S/41804/2014 in C/41544/2014