M/S Interocean Shipping (I) Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 12/2014 dated 23/01/2014 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, VISAKHAPATNAM]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SHRI 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

M/s Interocean Shipping (I) Pvt. Ltd. Flat No. IV/1, Sunrise Apartments, Beach Road, Pandurangapuram VISAKHAPATNAM  530003. Appellant(s)

Versus Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING... PORT AREA, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530035. Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. G. Prabhakara Sastry, Advocate M/s G.R. KUMAR AND CO.

NO.9, MERRY LIFE APPARTMENTS, DOCTOR'S COLONY, PEDA WALTAIR, VISAKHAPATNAM  530017. For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagdish, A.R. For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 02/07/2015 Date of Decision: 02/07/2015 CORAM :

HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21492 / 2015

Appellant is seeking condonation of delay of 10 days in filing the appeal which is attributed to the employee dealing with the matter leaving the company and the petitioner could not file the appeal in time due to shortage of staff. Such being the reason, the delay is condoned.

2. After hearing both the sides for considerable time, it was found that the lower authority has passed the order without considering and taking into account two important documents, namely a letter issued by the Port Trust to the party intimating that there was mistake in discharge of cargo with regard to different parties and also subsequent report of Visakhapatnam Sea Port Trust wherein they had indicated that there was 208 M.T. of cargo lying uncleared. In the absence of proper consideration of two documents, imposing penalty under Section 116(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the steamer agent requires reconsideration. It is also noticed that even the appellant made contrary submissions which also contributed to the conclusions that have been reached by the lower authorities. Therefore, it is felt that instead of granting stay, it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the original authority for proper consideration of documents and records so that the whole issue relating to short landing of the cargo and the consequential refund to one of the importers and the penalty on steamer agent for short landing of the cargo can be examined afresh.

3. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority for reconsideration of the issue in accordance with law. Needless to say, the appellant shall be given reasonable opportunity to present their case.

(Pronounced in open court)

(B.S.V.MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER

/vc/