M/S Smit International vs Commissioner Of Customs (Import), ...
- CitationAppeal No. C/809/11
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The adjudicating authority cannot rest a duty demand on a technical report that was never furnished to the assessee; non-supply of such a report is a breach of natural justice, which vitiates the demand and warrants remand for the report to be served and the assessee heard before a reasoned order is passed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Application No. C/S/2014/11 in Appeal No. C/809/11
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 122/MCH/AC/Gr.III/2010 dated 15.10.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai).
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 Smit International Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate for Appellant
Shri M.S. Reddy, Dy. Commissioner (AR) for Respondent
CORAM:
SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) SHRI P.S. PRUTHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Date of Hearing: 30.03.2015
Date of Decision: 30.03.2015
ORDER NO.
Per: Shri Anil Choudhary
The appellant M/s Smit International is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), New Custom House, Mumbai against dismissal of their appeal on the ground of limitation alone.
2. Earlier this Tribunal had dismissed the appeal by refusing to condone the delay for the delay in preferring the appeal before this Tribunal. Being aggrieved, the appellant had preferred Writ Petition No. 9350 of 2013 before the Honble Bombay High Court and the Honble High Court vide order dated 15.12.2014 has pleased to condone the delay and remand the matter for dismissal of appeal on merit.
3. Heard the learned AR and appellant on the stay as well as on the merits of the matter.
4. One of the grounds taken by the appellant is that there has been violation of principles of natural justice as the report of Dy. Chief Chemist, on which the disputed duty was raised, that report was never given to the appellant and as such, they had no opportunity to defend their case.
5. Having considered the rival contentions, we think it just and proper to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority, who shall serve a copy of the report of the Dy. Chief Chemist on basis of which the disputed demand was raised. Thereafter, the appellant shall be granted time of three weeks to file suitable reply, and after hearing the appellant, the adjudicating authority shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. The appellant is also directed to appear with a copy of this order before the concerned authority to seek personal hearing within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Thus, the appeal is allowed by way of remand. Stay petition is also disposed of.
(Dictated and pronounced in Court)
(P.S. Pruthi) (Anil Choudhary) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
Sinha
3
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