Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Cns Fortune Trading Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs (Ap), Mumbai on 20 November, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(143)ELT618(TRI-MUMBAI)
JUDGMENT Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. Application for early hearing of the above appeal is allowed.
2. Appeal itself is taken up for hearing. It is the contention of the Appellants herein that the goods confiscated absolutely in this case were supplied by M/s. Ramam Watch Industries at Rajkot and that the present order of absolute confiscation has been passed without even hearing them. This is taken away the right of being heard on the change of the Department that the goods were liable to confiscation. Appellants submit that the goods were sent by mistake and they have not been given an opportunity if satisfying the Department regarding their claim that the consignment should either be cleared on payment of duty or should be returned to them in Hong Kong. The contention is opposed by the Ld. D.R. who submits that once the appellant authorised M/s. Rama Watch Industries to clear the goods, there was no requirement in law for granting opportunity of hearing to the supplier of the goods.
3. We note that as power the letter dated March '99, the Appellants had written to the Department for clearance of goods on payment of duty or for returning the consignment to them. This is also referred to in the Show Cause Notice and further, M/s. Rama Watch Industries has stated that the goods were supplied by the Appellants. Therefore, once it is recognised that the appellants are the suppliers of the goods and hence owner of the goods, we are of the view that they should have been heard before the impugned order was passed. Since the order has been passed without granting them an opportunity of being heard, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision, after extending an opportunity of being heard.
4. The appeal is, thus, allowed.
(Pronounced in Court)