Commissioner Of Customs (General) vs Artex Textile Pvt. Ltd

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI

COURT No. I

APPEAL No.C/88398, 85085 to 85121/15

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.138 to 146 (Gr.III)/2012 (JNCH) Imp-121 to 129 dated 16/03/2012 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr.M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)

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 :Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

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

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :Yes authorities? ========================================

Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai Appellant Vs. Artex Textile Pvt. Ltd., Respondent

Appearance:

Shri.M.S.Reddy, Asst. Comm. (AR) for appellant Shri.D.B.Shroff, Sr. Advocate, for respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing : 28/04/2015 Date of Decision : 28/04/2015

ORDER NO

Per: M.V. Ravindran

1. All these appeals are disposed of by common order as they arise out of the very same impugned order and in respect of the very same assessee respondent.

2. Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order on the ground that the first appellate authority has held enhancement of value of the goods on imported PVC coated fabrics/knitted fabrics as unsustainable for not issuing speaking order under Section 17 (5) of the Customs Act, 1962.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that on a similar issue, in respect of the very same assessee/importer, revenue had filed Appeal Nos.C/505 to 513/12-Mum which was heard by the Bench and rejected by final order No.A/1382-1390/13/CSTB/C-I dated 27/06/2013. It is also his submission that this order was accepted by the department as is evident from letter No.S/26-Misc.05/13-14 Rew(I) dated 13/01/2015.

4. Learned DR Submits that the final order dated 27/06/2013 is in respect of the very same assessee respondent.

5. On perusal of the records and most specifically, the said order dated 27/06/2013, we find it so. In the cases in hand the first appellate authority has rejected the enhancement of the value on the ground that the provisions of Section 17 (5) of the Customs Act, 1962 is not followed by the assessing officers hence, the enhancement is unsustainable. We find no reason to deviate from the view already taken by the bench and accepted by the Revenue which is very evident from the letter dated 13/01/2015 which was in response to RTI query filed by the information seeker.

6. In view of the foregoing, we reject all the appeals filed by the Revenue and uphold the impugned order.

(Dictated in Court)

(P.S. Pruthi) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)

pj

1 3