M/S Foam Mattings (India) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs Cochin
- CitationAppeal No. 43/2010
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal may recall its own order dismissing an appeal for non-compliance with a pre-deposit direction, and restore the appeal, where the High Court has directed that the appeal be disposed of without insisting on any pre-deposit, and the appellant has since produced the export-obligation discharge certificate. Where the export obligation is alleged to be unfulfilled and the appellant produces, before the appellate forum, a certificate of export obligation discharge or redemption that was obtained after the impugned order, the Tribunal may set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for verification of that certificate and fresh decision, rather than deciding the question of fulfilment itself on appeal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Appeal(s) Involved: C/1487/2010-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 43/2010 dated 30/04/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Cochin]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE Mrs. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER 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? 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
M/s FOAM MATTINGS (INDIA) LTD PB.NO.4619, BEACH ROAD, ALAPPUZHA - 688012 Appellant(s)
Versus Commissioner of Customs COCHIN CUSTOM HOUSE COCHIN - 682009 Respondent(s)
Appearance:
M.BALAGOPAL, ADVOCATE ROOM NO. 301, 4TH FLOOR, DD VYAPAR BHAVAN, K.P. VALLON ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN - 682 020 For the Appellant
Mr. N. Jagdish, A.R. For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 30/04/2015 Date of Decision: 30/04/2015 CORAM :
HON'BLE Mrs. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Mr. B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 21089 / 2015
PER ARCHANA WADHWA Application for restoration of the appeal which was dismissed vide Final Order No. 106/2012 dated 7.2.2012 for non-compliance of the Stay Order No. 1199/2011 dated 24.11.2011 vide which the appellant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only). It is seen that the order was challenged before the Honble High Court of Kerala who directed the appellant to deposit the amount in question on or before 31.12.2014, vide their order dated 12.11.2014. The appellant filed a Review Petition before the Honble High Court against the stay order and the Honble High Court vide their order dated 20.12.2014, after appreciating the fact that the appellants have now obtained EODC / Redemption against EPCG Authorisation from the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, directed the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal without insisting any pre-deposit.
2. In view of the above development, we recall the order of the dismissal dated 7.2.2012 and restore the appeal to its original number and allow the ROA application.
3. Further, we proceed to decide the appeal itself inasmuch as the short issue is involved. The allegation against the appellants is that they have not fulfilled the export obligation and EODC has not been produced by them. It is the appellants contention that they have now obtained EODC / Redemption against EPCG Authorisation from the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, which stands produced before us today. The said certificate is required to be examined by the lower adjudicating authority for which purpose we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for undertaking the verification and decide the matter accordingly. The appeal as also ROA application get disposed of in the above manner.
(Pronounced in open court)
(B.S.V.MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER (ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER
/vc/
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