Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Swaraj Mazda Limited vs Cc. Kandla on 5 February, 2018
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad Appeal No.C/67 & 92/2009-DB [Arising out of OIA No OIA-213/2008-CUS/COMMR-A-/KDL dated 30.12.2008 passed by the C.C.E. Kandla] M/s Swaraj Mazda Limited Appellant CC. Kandla Vs CC. Kandla Respondent
M/s Swaraj Mazda Limited Represented by:
For Appellant: None For Respondent: Mr. A. Mishra (A.R.) CORAM:
HONBLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HONBLE Mr. Raju, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing/Decision:05.02.2018 Final Order No. A / 10285-10286 /2018 Per: Dr. D.M. Misra None present for the appellant. Through a letter dated 30.01.2018, the appellant had requested to decide the matter on merit on the basis of records available. Heard Ld. AR for the Revenue.
2. Ld. AR for the Revenue submits that in their own case this Tribunal vide Order No. A/11215/2015 dated 19/08/2015 pertaining to a Number of bills of entry involving the same imported goods disposed of the issue against them.
3. We find that this Tribunal while disposing the appeal filed on similar ground pertaining to the similar set of bills of entry filed in the year 1988 observed as follows:
3. We are enable to accept the submission of the learned advocate. Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides when the duty leviable on such goods is assessed finally in accordance with the provisions of this Act, then, in case of goods, cleared for home consumption, the amount paid shall be adjusted against the duty finally assessed and if the amount is paid, the importer or the exporter be entitled to a refund claim as the case may be. It is clear from Section 18 that the appellant is entitled to refund of duty after finalization of the assessments under the said Section. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that in the present case, assessment was finalized on 21.05.2004. He also submits that, the Department has granted the refund within 3 months from the finalization of the assessments. So, there is no infirmity in the order on this issue.
4. Regarding the remand of the matter to the Adjudicating Authority, the Learned Advocate submits that the appeal relates to 2006, and the law is totally settled by the various decisions by the Tribunal and High Court as under, and therefore, there is no requirement of remand the matter:-
(i) Commissioner of Customs vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. 2015 (317) E.L.T. 621 (T)
(ii) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs Union of India 2011 (170) E.L.T. 3 (SC)
(iii) J.K. Cement Works vs. ACCE2004 (170) E.L.T. 4 (Raj.), AC. Vs. J.K. Cement Works 2015 (179) E.L.T. A-150 (SC)
(iv) Tata Chemicals Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Order No./A/12312/2014 Dated 22.12.2014
(v) Commissioner vs Tata Chemicals Ltd. 2015-TIOL-1800-HC-AHM-CX
5. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) directed to the adjudicating authority to examine the admissibility of the refund as per the prevalent law. In our considered view, the Adjudicating Authority should consider the case laws as relied upon by the Learned Advocate while the passing the order in denovo proceedings. In view of the discussions, we do not find any reason to interfere the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). However, as the matter is for the year 1988, we direct the Adjudicating Authority to complete the denove proceedings within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal filed by the appellant is disposed of with the above observations.
4. Following the aforesaid precedent, the present appeal filed by the assesse is also disposed of by remanding the case to the adjudicating authority as observed in the aforesaid decision. Revenues appeal is also disposed of on the same line. Appeals disposed of as above.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
(Mr. Raju) (Dr. D.M. Misra)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
Neha
3 | Page
C/67 & 92/2009-DB