C.C.E. Ghaziabad vs M/S. Gagan Impex

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.GZB/EXCUS-000-APP-243 to 245-13-14 dated 05.03.2014 by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad].

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see 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 CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

C.C.E. Ghaziabad .Appellants

Vs.

M/s. Gagan Impex .Respondent

Appearance:

Shri G.R.Singh, DR for the Appellants

Ms. Prabhjyoti Arora, Advocate for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing: 19.01.2015

FINAL ORDER NO.50265-50267-CU(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal:

The revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the Ld. Commissioner (A) has reduced the redemption fine and penalties on the respondent.

2. The facts of the case are that respondent imported Refurbished 15 inch & 17 inch Data Graphic Display Tubes for color with phosphor screen, Pitch (15 inch & 17 inch) Dot Pitch less than 0.4 mm. As per import policy para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14 deals with such imports whether these items are freely importable or not. The claim of the revenue is that the items imported by the respondent falls under Sl. No.1A of para 2.17 of Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14. But the claim of the respondent is that items imported by them falls under 1B of the para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14. The Ld. Commissioner (A) hold that items imported by respondent for these under para 3 of the para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14 without assigning any reason. Therefore, revenue is in appeal.

3. Heard the parties. Perused the impugned order.

4. On perusal of the impugned orders I find that although the Ld. Commissioner (A) hold that the items imported by the respondent falls under Sl. No. 1B of the para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14, but have not given any detail findings thereon. Therefore impugned orders are set aside. Matter are remanded back to Ld. Commissioner (A) to give reasons for arriving at the decision holding that impugned items fall under Sl.No. 1B of Para 2.17 of Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14.

5. In these circumstances, impugned order is set aside. Appeals are allowed on the above matter.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

(Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)

Bhanu

2

C/53201-53203/2014-CU(SM)