M/S Rkm Powergen Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, ...
- CitationAppeal No. VTZ-CUSTM-000-APP-007-15-16 dated 28/04/2015 passed by Commissioner of Customs,
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appellate authority is entitled to set aside an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority where the appellant produces, after the impugned order was passed, a permission from the DGFT which bears on whether the goods could be cleared through the port of importation.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. VTZ-CUSTM-000-APP-007-15-16 dated 28/04/2015 passed by Commissioner of Customs, VISAKHAPATNAM]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, 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? Yes 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 RKM Powergen Pvt. Ltd 2nd & 3rd Floor, No14, Dr Giriappa Road, T Nagar CHENNAI 600017. Appellant(s) Versus
Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING PORT AREA, VISAKHAPATNAM 530035. Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. Dinesh Sam, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagdish, A.R. For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 31/08/2015 Date of Decision: 31/08/2015 CORAM :
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 21801 / 2015
PER ARCHANA WADHWA
After hearing the early hearing application for some time, we proceed to decide the appeal itself inasmuch as short issue is involved.
2. The lower authority has held that the Vacuum Cleaning System mounted on a Motor Vehicle by the appellant can be cleared only through designated port, and Visakhapatnam Port, where the same is imported, is not a designated port. The lower authority has also held that inasmuch as there is no permission from DGFT for clearance of the goods through Visakhapatnam Port, the clearance cannot be permitted.
3. Learned advocates contention is that they now have the permission which came into their hands only after the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for examination of the said permission granted by the DGFT and decide the matter accordingly.
5. Early hearing application as also appeal get disposed of in the above manner. (Pronounced in open court)
(ASHOK KUMAR ARYA) 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