M/S Refco Industries vs Commissioner Of Customs (Import), ...
- CitationAppeal No. C/367/11
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal is allowed by following the Tribunal's earlier Final Order No. A/573-625/2013/CSTB/C-I dated 20.3.2013 in a batch of appeals arising from the same common Order-in-Appeal, the Tribunal having considered that the same issue has already been decided by a Division Bench in respect of co-appellants. The reasoning in this order rests solely on that consistency with the earlier decision; the substantive principles of valuation and refund are not set out in the text and are not stated here.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 36 to 89/MCH/AC/Gr.III/2011 dated 25.2.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-I).
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)
======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
======================================================
M/s Refco Industries Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Anil Balani, Advocate for Appellant
Shri M.K. Mall, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for Respondent
CORAM:
SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) SHRI P.S. PRUTHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Date of Hearing: 13.03.2015
Date of Decision: 13.03.2015
ORDER NO.
Per: Anil Choudhary
The appellant is in appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 36 to 89/MCH/AC/Gr.III/2011 dated 25.2.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-I.
2. The issue relates to import of umbrella cloth panel by 54 importers including the appellant declaring them as components of umbrella and valuation of such goods was disputed.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant points out that vide common Order-in-Original No. 1307/10/AMS/Gr.III dated 25.10.2010, duty was imposed on 54 persons including the present appellant, who was at Sr. No. 8 whereby the refund claimed by them of the duty paid goods was rejected. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the aforementioned common order was pleased to dismiss the appeal. In a batch of appeals arising from the said common order in respect of other appellants, vide Final Order No. A/573-625/13/CSTB/C-I dated 20.3.2013, a Division Bench of this Tribunal, allowed the appeals by setting aside the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) with consequential relief as per law. A copy of the said order is placed on record.
4. The learned AR accepts that the matter has been decided by the Division Bench in the same matter as mentioned by the Counsel for the appellant.
5. Having considered the submissions made by both sides, in the interest of justice and for sake of convenience, this appeal is also allowed in terms of earlier Final Order No. A/573-625/2013/CSTB/C-I dated 20.3.2013, a copy of which is annexed and forming part of this order.
(Dictated and pronounced in Court)
(P.S. Pruthi) (Anil Choudhary) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
Sinha
1
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