Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) vs M/S Aapee Ship Breakers P. Ltd

Appeal No.C/72-75/2007; C/CO/73,10437,136/2007 [Arising out of OIA No.172/JMN/2006, dt. 30/11/2006, OIA No.175/JMN/2006, dt. 30/11/2006, OIA No.176/JMN/2006, dt.21/12/2006, OIA No.13/JMN/2007, dt. 25/01/2007, passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Central Excise & Service Tax, Jamnagar]

1. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jamnagar 2. Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhavnagar Appellants

Vs

1. M/s Aapee Ship Breakers P. Ltd 2. M/s Kalthia Ship Breaking P. Ltd 3. M/s Akil Ship Breakers P. Ltd. 4. M/s Kalthia Ship Breaking P. Ltd Respondents

Represented by:

For Appellant: Dr. J. Nagori, Authorised Representative For Respondent: Shri Sarju S. Mehta, C.A. (for S.No.3)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.M. Saleem, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No 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 of Seen the order?

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

CORAM:

HONBLE MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HONBLE MR. P.M. SALEEM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision:22.07.2015

Order No. A/11078-11081/2015 dt.22.07.2015

Per: P.K. Das

Revenue filed these appeals against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), where the appeals of the Respondents were allowed by way of remand. The learned Authorised Representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not taken into consideration the various decisions of the Tribunal.

2. On the other hand, CA S.S. Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of M/s Akil Ship Breakers P. Ltd submits that the issue is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs J.M. Industries  2014 (302) ELT 382 (Guj.) in favour of the Respondents. None appears on behalf of other Respondents.

3. After considering the submissions of both sides, we find force in the submission of learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondent. In view of that, we do not find any reason to interfere the order of Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, all appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected. However, considering the matters are of 2007, we direct the Adjudicating Authority to decide the cases as expeditiously as possible. The cross objections are disposed of.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

cbb 2