Commissioner Of Customs (Prev), Mumbai vs Reliance Infrastructure Ltd

(arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. MUM-CUSTM-PRV-APP-264 & 269/2014-15 dated 23.07.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs(A), Mumbai III)

Date of hearing: 07/04/2015 Date of decision: 07/04/2015 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 Yes of the Order?

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

Commissioner of Customs (Prev), Mumbai Appellant

Vs.

Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. Respondent

Appearance:

Shri A.K. Singh, Addl.Comm (AR) for the appellant Shri J.H. Motwani, Advocate for the respondent

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

ORDER No: ..

Per: M.V. Ravindran:

When these applications were called out, it was mentioned by the ld. Departmental Representative that these applications are for Condonation of Delay for filing the supplementary appeals. Since the main appeal no. C/89837/14 was filed in time, we condone the delay in filing the supplementary appeals and tag this appeal along with main appeal. Application for Condonation of Delay is allowed.

2. At this juncture, ld. counsel submits that the appeal themselves could be disposed of along with the main appeal as revenue wants the appeals to be remanded to the first appellate authority to reconsider the matter. Ld. counsel does not have any serious objection to remanding to the first appellate authority.

3. Ld. Departmental Representative also concurs with the ld. counsel.

4. We called for Appeal no. C/89837/14 and have taken up all the appeals for disposal.

5. On perusal of the records, it transpires that the Adjudicating Authority has held in favour of the respondent assessee herein. On appeals filed by the revenue, the first appellate authority has reversed such order and remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority without considering any of the documentary evidence produced by the respondent assessee. In our view, the first appellate authority should have considered the merits based upon documents produced before him.

6. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order, remand all the appeals back to the first appellate authority to reconsider the issue afresh after following the principles of natural justice. Since the issue involved is of recurring nature, the first appellate authority is directed to dispose of the appeals within three months from the receipt of the order of the Tribunal.

7. All appeals are allowed by way of remand.

(Dictated in Court)

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

//SR 1 2 2