Commissioner Of Customs (Prev.), ... vs M/S. Panchvati Ship Breakers
- CitationAppeal No. : C/98,99/2007
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The matter is disposed of by remand, and the order contains no substantive reasoning on the merits of the customs question. The only reasoning is procedural: an appeal against an order of remand, with no appearance for the respondent and no application for adjournment, may be decided on the Revenue's submissions and the records, and the adjudicating authority, having finalised a provisional assessment under Section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, is directed to consider the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in the remand proceedings.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of OIA Nos. 12/JMN/2007 & 14/JMN/2007 both dated 25.01.2007, passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Jamnagar)
Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Jamnagar : Appellant (s)
VERSUS
M/s. Panchvati Ship Breakers : Respondent (s)
M/s. Rushil Industries Limited
Represented by :
For Appellant (s) : Shri T.K. Sikdar, Authorised Representative For Respondent (s) : None.
For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. H.K. Thakur, Hon'ble Member (Technical)
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) Mr. H.K. Thakur, Hon'ble Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing / Decision : 12.05.2015
ORDER No. A/10599-10600/2015 Dated 12.05.2015
Per : Mr. P.K. Das;
Revenue filed these appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the appeals were allowed by way of remand. None appeared on behalf of the Respondent. There is no application for adjournment.
2. After hearing the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue and on perusal of the records, we find that the adjudicating authority finalized the assessment which was provisionally assessed under Section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and confirmed the differential duty. Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter with certain observations. Learned Authorised Representative reiterates the grounds of appeal. In our considered view, the adjudicating authority should consider the grounds of appeal as raised by the Revenue before the Bench.
3. In view of the above, we direct the adjudicating authority to consider the grounds of appeal of the Revenue in remand proceedings. Appeals filed by the Revenue are disposed of in above terms.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
(H.K. Thakur) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) ..KL
2
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