Artex Textile P. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs(Import), ...
- CitationAppeal No. C/89784/14
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The refund or re-credit of SAD is not to be rejected merely because the claimant has not produced the original DEPB credit and papers before the original authorities where the claimant is in possession of those documents; the claimant must be given the opportunity to produce the relevant originals before the Adjudicating Authority, and the Adjudicating Authority must decide the claim afresh after observing the principles of natural justice.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out Order-in-Appeal No. 2710 (CRC.IIB)/2014 (JNCH)/IMP-2574 dated 14.07.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Nhava Sheva)
For approval and signature: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
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 No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy Yes of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?
Artex Textile P. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs(Import), Nhava Sheva Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Prem Ranjan Kumar, Advocate for the appellant Shri S.J. Sahu, AC (AR) for the respondent
CORAM:
Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
Date of hearing : 08.05.2015 Date of decision : 08.05.2015
O R D E R No:..
This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 2710 (CRC.IIB)/2014 (JNCH)/IMP-2574 dated 14.07.2014.
2. Heard both sides and perused the record.
3. On perusal of the record, I find that the issue is regarding the refund of SAD paid by the appellant or re-credit of the same. Both the authorities have recorded the finding that the appellant had not submitted original DEPB credit with all original papers, hence their claim cannot be processed and was rejected.
4. From the grounds of appeal, as also the submission of the ld. counsel, it seems to be that the appellant are in possession of the documents and can produce the same before the Tribunal. In my considered view, the production of the original document should be before the Adjudicating Authority so that the Adjudicating Authority can consider the issue and come to a conclusion.
5. In view of this, I set aside the impugned orders and the remand the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority to reconsider the issue afresh after following the principles of natural justice. Appellant is directed to produce all the relevant document as may be required by the Adjudicating Authority for processing the claim.
(Pronounced in Court)
(M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)
//SR
2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free