M/S Monika India vs Commissioner Of Customs, Kandla

Appeal No.C/282/2007; C/Others/10392/2015 [Arising out of OIA-271-2006-KDL-CUS-COMMR-AAHD, dt.01.12.2006, passed by Commissioner of Customs, Kandla]

M/s Monika India Appellant

Vs

Commissioner of Customs, Kandla Respondent

Represented by:

For Appellant: Shri Sahil Goyal, Authorised Representative For Respondent: Shri K. Sivakumar, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. H.K. Thakur, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Seen the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?

CORAM:

HONBLE MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HONBLE MR. H.K. THAKUR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision:22.04.2015

Order No. A/10425/2015, dt.22.04.2015

Per: P.K. Das

1. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the issue involved in this appeal is in narrow compass, in so far as the Adjudicating authority denied logging of DECE Book No.004686, dt.03.08.1988 in respect of the goods exported by the Appellant by Shipping Bill No.F-006520, dt.17.07.1991 as the Appellant had not submitted the documents.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Adjudication order.

3. The learned Representative for the Appellant submits that the Adjudicating authority denied the benefit on the ground that the Appellant has not placed the documents. He submits that the documents were lying with the DGFT authorities. It is contended that as revealed from the note sheet of the DGFT authorities that they referred the matter to the Customs with full details for review of this case. The learned Representative also drew the attention of the Bench to the Note sheet dt.08.01.2007 of the DGFT authorities, which was submitted in their application for additional evidence. These documents came in the light after the order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In view of that, it is appropriate that the matter should be re-examined by the Adjudicating authority.

4. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order. The matter is remanded to the Adjudicating authority to decide afresh, after considering the documents as extended by the Appellant. Needless to say that the Adjudicating authority shall give proper opportunity of hearing before decision. The appeal is allowed by way of remand. Miscellaneous application for additional evidence is disposed of.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(H.K. Thakur) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

cbb 2