Commissioner Of Customs (Import) vs Star Industries
- CitationAppeal No. C/86232/13
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The eligibility of the respondent to the exemption under Notification No. 4/2006-CE, as regards the customs duty (countervailing duty) on the imported goods covered by the Bill of Entry in dispute, stands concluded against the assessee by the Tribunal's earlier decision in the respondent's own case (2014 (312) ELT 209 (Tri.-Mum)), which, on the same Bill of Entry and the same Order-in-Appeal, specifically rejected the assessee's claim to that exemption; where the appeal raises the same issue as one already decided by the Tribunal between the same parties, the later appeal is to be allowed to the extent of following that earlier decision.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 746 (GR.-I)/2012 (JNCH)/IMP-618 dated 18.12.2012 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 : No 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 (Import), Mumbai Appellant Vs.
Star Industries Respondent
Appearance:
Shri M.K. Mall, Asst. Commissioner (AR) for appellant None for respondent
CORAM:
Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing: 23.03.2015 Date of Decision: 23.03.2015
ORDER NO
Per: M.V. Ravindran
This stay petition filed by the Revenue is for staying operation of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which hold a view that the respondent is eligible for the benefit of Notification 04-2006-CX dated 01.03.2006.
2. None appeared for the respondent. Heard learned A.R. and perused the records.
3. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, we take up the appeal itself for disposal even in the absence of respondents representative.
4. Learned A.R. appearing for the Revenue rely upon the judgement of this Tribunal in respondents own case as reported in 2014 (312) ELT 209 (Tri. Mum) and submit that the issue is now well settled in Revenues favour.
5. On perusal of the said judgement we find it so. We also find that the very same Order-in-Appeal was contested before this Bench in Appeal No. C/1311/2012-Mum. As regards the demand of customs duty on the import of Molybdenum ore and the very same Bill of Entry which is in dispute in this appeal was also there in the said appeal of the respondent. Detailed order of this Bench (cited above) has disposed of the appeal and the said order at para 6.4 has specifically discarded the claim of the assessee regarding eligibility to avail exemption from CVD under Notification No.4/2006-CE. In our view, this appeal is already decided by the Bench in the said order as cited here-in above. In view of the foregoing, since the appeal in this case is arising on the same Order-in-Appeal and raises same view which has already been decided in favour of the revenue, we allow the appeal to that extent which is decided in this appeal.
(Dictated in Court)
(P.S. Pruthi) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)
nsk
??
??
??
??
1 3
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