Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Raymonds Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Mumbai-Ii on 7 June, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. I Appeal No. C/1085 & 1086/03 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 74/2003 (JCH) dated 21.4.2003passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Nhava Sheva). For approval and signature: Honble Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities? ====================================================== M/s Raymonds Ltd. Appellants Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai-II Respondent Appearance: Shri Ayush Agrawal Advocate for Appellants Shri Kishori Lal SDR for Respondent CORAM: SHRI P.G. CHACKO, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) SHRI SAHAB SINGH, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing: 07.06.2011 Date of Decision: 07.06.2011 ORDER NO. WZB/MUM/2011 Per: P.G. Chacko
These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner (Appeals) rejected two appeals of the assessee which were filed against two Orders-in-Assessment/Original of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs. The original authority had rejected two refund claims of the assessee, one for duty of Rs.31,268/- which was claimed to have been paid in excess on a Bill of Entry filed in April, 2001 and other for Rs.31,869/- which was claimed to have been paid in excess on a Bill of Entry filed in May, 2001. Both the refund claims were rejected. The original authoritys orders were ex parte as the assessee did not avail the personal hearing offered by the authority. The said authority verified records of contemporary import prices and noted that the loaded value of the goods imported by the assessee was on par with those prices. On this basis, the original authority found the assessment to be in order. Consequently, the refund claims came to be rejected.
2. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in the appeals filed by the assessee against the Orders-in-Assessment/Original reads as follows: -
I have gone through the case file and the submissions of the appellant. I find that the lower authority has enhanced the value on the basis of contemporary evidences. As such, I dont want to interfere with the same.
I uphold the order of the lower authority and reject the appeal filed by the appellant.
3. The above order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is presently under challenge mainly on the ground that it is not a speaking order. This ground raised by the appellant is found to be justifiable inasmuch as the learned Commissioner (Appeals) chose to dispose of the assessees appeals in one line reading As such, I dont want to interfere with the same. This one liner is not preceded by any discussion whatsoever. The impugned order is, therefore, unsustainable in law.
4. In the present appeals, the assessee has also raised a grievance against the original authority. It is stated that a letter dated 29.01.2002 submitted to the said authority seeking adjournment of hearing was disregarded. A copy of this letter is available on record. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that this letter was received in the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs on 30.01.2002. The orders of the Deputy Commissioner indicate that the case was posted for hearing on 01.02.2002. Of course, it also says that the personal hearing offered to the importer on 01.02.2002 was not availed. This sketch of facts and circumstances do not appear to substantiate the appellants grievance that the original authority did not follow the principles of natural justice. However, another grievance raised by the appellant seems to be genuine. It is submitted that no material relating to contemporary import prices was disclosed by the original authority. The Orders-in-Assessment/Original merely state that the contemporary import price during the relevant time was verified and it was found that the prices of the goods cleared during the relevant time were at par with the loaded value. The Orders-in-Original do not reveal that the relevant records indicating contemporary import prices were supplied to the assessee.
5. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are inclined to remand the case to the original authority for fresh decision on the refund claims. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and these appeals are allowed by way of remand with a direction to the original authority to take fresh decision on the refund claims after giving the party an opportunity of verifying the relevant records and also of being personally heard.
(Dictated and pronounced in Court)
(Sahab Singh) (P.G. Chacko) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
Vks/
1