Easy Stitch Needles Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs And Service ...
- CitationAppeal No. 530/2013 dated 31/12/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The adjudicating authority's confirmation of duty and interest on DEEC imports, on the sole ground that the importer failed to produce the EODC within the prescribed period, cannot stand where the importer was pursuing the EODC and the Commissioner (Appeals) has been presented with the EODC issued in respect of the exports; in such circumstances the matter is to be remanded to the original adjudicating authority to take the EODC on record and decide afresh in accordance with law after affording the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 530/2013 dated 31/12/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE Mr. B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
1 Whether Press Reporters 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 the 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
Easy stitch Needles Pvt. Ltd. (Now, M/s. Sutures India Pvt. Ltd.), B-260, Peenya Industrial Area, Peenya II Stage, Bangalore 560 058 Karnataka Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Customs and Service Tax, Bangalore C.R. Building, Queens Road, P.B. No. 5400, Bangalore 560 001 Karnataka Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. B. Venugopal, Advocate Swamy Associates G-8, Fortuna Icon Apartments, Jodidar Ashwathappa Farm, Sahakara Nagar, Bangalore - 560 092 For the Appellant
Mr. N. Jagdish, AR For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 20/03/2015 Date of Decision: 20/03/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 20807 / 2015
Demand for customs duty on the imports made under DEEC scheme has been confirmed with interest on the ground that appellant could not produce the EODC from the DGFT within the period prescribed.
2. Learned counsel submits that appellant was pursuing the matter when the proceedings started and in spite of request made by the importer the impugned original order came to be passed. Subsequently before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) the appellant had produced EODC in respect of exports made by them and even though it was produced this was not at all considered.
3. Under the circumstances discussed above, it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority at this stage itself so that the EODC received by the appellant subsequently can be produced before the original authority and original authority after taking the EODC on record shall proceed to adjudicate the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant to present their case. In the result stay application as well as appeal get disposed of.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open court)
(B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER
iss
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