Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive), ... vs Heidelberg Cement (India) Ltd

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal24 March 2015

CitationAppeal No. C/87220/2014-Mum.

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The first appellate authority was not mandated to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority, but where the adjudicating order has not considered the appellant's submissions in toto, re-adjudication is warranted in the interest of justice, and the matter may be remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh, after affording the assessee an opportunity to contest the documents and contemporaneous imports relied upon, in compliance with the principles of natural justice.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALWEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAICOURT NO.Appeal No. C/87220/2014-Mum.

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. MUM-CUSTM-PRV-APP-646 to 647/13-14 dated 12.3.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai-III )

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 :

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 :

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

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :

of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :

authorities?

=============================================================

Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai :

Appellant

Heidelberg Cement (India) Ltd.

Respondent

Appearance

Shri M.K. Mall, Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) for Appellant

Shri Narendra Dave, C.A. for respondent

CORAM:

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

Date of hearing : 24/03/2015 Date of decision : 24/03/2015

ORDER NO.

Per : M.V. Ravindran

This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. MUM-CUSTM-PRV-APP-646 to 647/13-14 dated 12.3.2014.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The issue involved in this case is regarding the confirmation of differential duty on finalization of provisionally assessed Bills of Entry. Appellant and assessee are aggrieved by the impugned order. On the ground that the first appellate authority has remanded the matter back to adjudicating authority, which he is not mandated.

4. On perusal of the records, it is seen that appellant is aggrieved by the adjudicating authoritys order as not having considered their submissions in toto. This is a very important aspect which needs to be considered. We note that first appellate authority has also recorded the same. In the interest of justice, we agree with the first appellate authority that matter needs re-adjudication.

5. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, keeping all issues open, we remand the matter back to adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh, after giving an opportunity to the assessee to contest the documents, contemporaneous imports etc. that is sought to be relied upon, and follow the principles of natural justice before coming to a conclusion.

6. Appeal disposed of as indicated hereinabove by way of remand.

(Pronounced in court)

(P.S.Pruthi) Member (Technical)

(M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)

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