Hid India Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Imports)

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH CHENNAI

Appeal No.C/EH/40128/2015 & C/352/2009

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.C.Cus.No.563/2009 dt. 29.6.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai]

HID India Pvt. Ltd. Appellant

Versus

Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Chennai Respondent

Appearance:

Shri Rahim, Advocate For the Appellant

Shri R. Subramanian, AC (AR) For the Respondent

CORAM :

Honble Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member Honble Shri P.K. Choudhary, Judicial Member

Date of Hearing/Decision : 2.7.2015

FINAL ORDER No.40731/2015

Per R. Periasami

Ld. Counsel submits that by the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the issue to lower authority to decide the valuation issue afresh. The lower authority has not decided the issue in view of pendency of appeal before Tribunal. Therefore, they have filed EH application seeking early hearing of the appeal.

2. After hearing both sides, we are of the considered view that appeal itself can be disposed at this stage. Therefore, the appeal is taken up for disposal.

3. The short issue in this case is that appellants imported Contactless Access Control Readers from their related principal company HID Asia Pacific Ltd., Hongkong. The Special Valuation Branch took up the investigation on the valuation dispute and directed the appellant to pay 1% Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) pending finalisation. Subsequently by OIO dated 17.1.2007, the department accepted the transaction value as per Rule 4 (3) (a) of Customs Valuation Rules 1988. Aggrieved by the order, Revenue filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the case to the original adjudicating authority for de novo. Hence appellant filed the present appeal.

4. Ld. Advocate submits that the lower adjudicating authority is not finalising the SVB and they are continuing to pay 1% EDD since the appeal is pending before this Tribunal. He further submits that the impugned order should be set aside as Commissioner (Appeals) has no power of remand.

5. On the other hand, Ld. A.R. submits that Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the issue on merits but has only remanded the case to lower authority to take into account the contemporary imports and decide the valuation issue afresh.

6. After hearing the submissions of both sides, we find from the impugned order that LAA has considered the submissions of Revenue at pages 6 and 7 of the order and held that LA has not examined the facts for determining the value under Rule 7 of CVR. Since the matter is already remanded by LAA without the issue being not decided on merits, we find that there is no merit in the appellant's plea for remand of the matter by this Tribunal to Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal is therefore dismissed. However, we direct the original authority to finalize the de novo proceedings as directed by Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dt. 29.6.2009 within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(P.K. CHOUDHARY) (R. PERIASAMI) JUDICIAL MEMBER TECHNICAL MEMBER

gs 3