Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Engee Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd. And ... vs Commissioner Of Customs on 24 June, 2003
ORDER Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. After hearing both sides for some time on the applications for waiver of pre-deposit, we find that it is possible to hear and decide the appeals themselves at this stage. Hence after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 2 crores imposed upon M/s. Engee Industrial Services Ltd., and Rs. 1 crore on its Director Shri Vinod Goyal, we heard both sides on the appeals and pass the following order.
2. By the impugned order the adjudicating authority has held that the goods in question, namely, the vessel for ship breaking is liable for confiscation and has also imposed penalties as set out above on the importer and on the Managing Director of the importing company. The plea of the appellants before the Tribunal is two fold:
i. That the order is an ex-parte order as although notice of hearing fixing the cases for hearing on 27/08/2001 was issued, the appellants sought adjournment under the cover of a letter of the same date but the adjudicating authority has proceeded to decide the case without extending any hearing to the appellants;
ii. That the order is without jurisdiction as it has been passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai while the show cause notice is made answerable to the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore.
3. It is also brought to our notice that the same pleas were accepted by the Tribunal in the appellants' own case as seen from order No. C-I/4073-4074/WZB/2002 dated 02/12/2002 and the case was remanded for fresh adjudication. Following the same route in these cases also we set aside the impugned order after accepting the appellants plea that the order has been passed in contravention of principles of natural justice and also the plea regarding lack of jurisdiction and we remand the case to the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore for fresh adjudication. He shall pass orders after extending a reasonable opportunity to the appellants of being heard and explaining their defence.
4. The appeals are thus allowed by remand.