Commissioner Of Customs, Kandla vs M/S. Astro Impex

(Arising out of OIA-604/2013/CUS/COMMR-A-/KDL dated 02.09.2013, Passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Kandla)

Commissioner of Customs, Kandla : Appellant (s)

VERSUS

M/s. Astro Impex : Respondent (s)

Represented by :

For Appellant (s) : Shri S.K. Shukla, Authorised Representative For Respondent (s) : Shri Manish Jain, Advocate

For approval and signature :

Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial)

1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

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

Yes

CORAM :

Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing / Decision : 23.02.2015

ORDER No. A/10156 / 2015 Dated 23.02.2015

Per : Mr. P.K. Das;

Revenue filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the adjudication order was set-aside.

2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the Respondent imported Aluminium Foil of thickness 6.5 Micron and of sizes 910mm, 920mm and 1000mm under various Bills of Entry and paid 4% SAD. They filed refund claim of Rs. 10,56,775/- in terms of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.9.2007. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim on the ground that the Respondent failed to fulfil the condition of the said notification insofar as they have not filed various documents in support of the refund claim. By the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) set-aside the adjudication order, on the ground that the Respondent submitted the documents as required by the adjudicating authority.

3. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal. Learned Advocate for the Respondent submits that the Respondent filed the documents before both the authorities below and the Commissioner (Appeals), after due examination of the documents, allowed the appeal. He fairly submits that despite the documents examined by the Commissioner (Appeals), if the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for a limited purpose, for verification of the documents, he has no objection. He also submits that on the identical issue, the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Sea  Export), Chennai vs. Shri Ram Impex India Pvt. Limited  2014-TIOL-01-CESTAT-MAD, rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue.

4. I find force in the submissions of the learned Advocate for the Respondent. It is seen that the documents placed by the Respondent before the Commissioner (Appeals) were not properly examined by the adjudicating authority. In view of that, the impugned orders are set-aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to examine the documents. Learned Advocate is directed to cooperate with the adjudicating authority in de-novo adjudication. Needless to say that the adjudicating authority shall give proper opportunity of hearing before decision. Appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed by way of remand.

(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)

(P.K. Das) Member (Judicial) ..KL

3