Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Pali Creations vs Cce (St), Coimbatore on 16 July, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
E/S/40109/2013 & E/40115/2013
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal CMB-CEX-000-284-12 dated 16.11.2012, passed by the CCE (ST), Coimbatore).
For approval and signature
Honble Shri P.K. DAS, Judicial Member
__________________________________________________________
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the : Yes
order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : No
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether the Honble Member wishes to see the fair : Seen
copy of the Order.
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the : Yes
Departmental Authorities? __________________________________________________________
M/s. Pali Creations : Appellants
Vs.
CCE (ST), Coimbatore : Respondent
Appearance Shri B.N. Venkatesh Murthy, Adv., for the appellants Shri K.V.S.S. Prasad, JC (AR), for the respondents CORAM Honble Shri P.K. Das, Judicial Member Date of Hearing : 16.07.2013 Date of Decision: 16.07.2013 ORDER No._______________ Per: P.K. Das The applicant filed this application for waiver of predeposit of duty and penalty. The AR raised preliminary objection. He submits that the appeal relates to drawback claim and the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and therefore, the Appellate Tribunal have no jurisdiction to decide the case in terms of proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 129 A of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. After hearing both sides, I find that the original authority confirmed the demand of duty drawback under the provisions of Rule 16A(2) of the Customs, Central Excise duty and Service Tax drawback Rules, 1995 read with Section 75A(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and also imposed penalty. The first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 provides that no appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not have jurisdiction to decide any appeal in respect of any order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128 A of the said Act, relates to payment of drawback as provided under Chapter and the Rules made there under. In the present case, the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) relates to the drawback claim and therefore this Tribunal shall have no jurisdiction to decide the matter. At this stage, the Ld. Advocate seeks liberty to file the appeal before the competent authority.
3. In view of the above, the appeal along with the stay application is dismissed as non-maintainable. The appellant is at liberty to proceed to file the appeal before the competent authority in accordance with law.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court) P.K. Das, Judicial Member BB 2