M/S. Kargwal Corporation vs Commissioner Of Customs, Kandla

(Arising out of OIO-KDL/COMMR/01/2008 dated 01.01.2008, passed by Commissioner of Customs, Kandla)

M/s. Kargwal Corporation : Appellant (s)

VERSUS

Commissioner of Customs, Kandla : Respondent (s)

Represented by :

For Appellant (s) : Shri Rahul Gajera, Advocate

For Respondent (s) : Shri J. Nagori, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature :

Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Hon'ble Member (Technical)

1 Whether Press Reporter 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 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

CORAM :

Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Hon'ble Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing / Decision : 16.07.2015

ORDER No. A/11030/2015 Dated 16.07.2015

Per : Mr. P.K. Das;

After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the issue involved in this case is in narrow compass. The appellants imported rough Limestone Blocks. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and imposed redemption fine and penalty on the ground of contravention of Foreign Trade Development Policy. The learned advocate submits that, in identical issue, in their own case, the Tribunal by Final Order No. A/10912/2015 dated 18.06.2015, remanded the matter for de-novo adjudication. The learned Authorised Representative reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority.

2. On a query from the Bench, the learned Advocate submits that the de-novo proceedings is still pending. In our considered view, as the present appeal is identical to the earlier appeal, it is appropriate that this matter should be considered by the adjudicating authority in de-novo adjudication.

3. In view of the above, we direct the adjudicating authority to decide this matter in de-novo adjudication as per our earlier order dated 18.06.2015. The impugned order is set-aside. Appeal is allowed by way of remand. We direct the adjudicating authority to complete the de-novo proceedings as expeditiously as possible.

(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)

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

2