Cc (Preventive), New Delhi vs M/S Spice Mobiles Limited
- CitationCustoms Appeal No. 13 of 2010
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal is dismissed on the ground that the facts are identical to those in Brightpoint India Pvt. Limited, and the tribunal adopts the reasoning of that earlier decision for the same result; the present order sets out no independent reasoning of its own. Accordingly, no ratio decidendi can be extracted from this text beyond the adoption of the earlier decision's reasoning, which is not reproduced here. NO_RATIO: The order disposes of the appeal solely by reference to Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi vs. Brightpoint India Pvt. Limited, without stating the reasoning of that case, and sets out no independent legal principle of its own.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of 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?
Customs Appeal No. 13 of 2010
(Arising out of order-in-appeal No.CC(A) CUS/I&G/233/09 dated 06.11.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Custom House, New Delhi).
CC (Preventive), New Delhi Appellant
Vs.
M/s Spice Mobiles Limited Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Satyaveer Singh, Chief Commissioner (AR) for the appellant
Shri S. Vasudevan, Advocate for the Respondent
Coram: Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President
Honble Mr. C. J. Mathew, Member (Technical)
Final Order No. 53268/ 2015
Per: Justice G. Raghuram:
Appeal is preferred against the order dated 06.11.2009 of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. The impugned order rejected Revenues appeal preferred against the primary adjudication order dated 28.08.2009, to the extent the order directed recovery of the demurrage on goods of the respondent which were seized, from Shri Ram Kumar, on whose complaint proceedings were initiated for confiscation of imported goods and imposition of duty and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. The primary adjudication order further directed that such demurrage charges should be reimbursed to the respondent but could be recovered from Shri Ram Kumar. The impugned order did not find any infirmity that the order passed by the primary adjudicating authority, in an appeal preferred by Revenue.
2. In an identical matrix of facts, presented in Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi vs. Brightpoint India Pvt. Limited 2015-TIOL-1840-CESTAT-DEL, Revenue appeal was dismissed. For the detailed analyses and reasons stated in the above judgment, we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(Justice G. Raghuram)
President
(C. J. Mathew)
Member (Technical)
Pant
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