Whether Press Reporters May Be Allowed ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

C/Stay/26734/2013, C/Stay/26735/2013, C/Stay/26736/2013 in C/26416/2013-DB, C/26417/2013-DB, C/26418/2013-DB Appeal(s) Involved:

C/26416/2013-DB, C/26417/2013-DB, C/26418/2013-DB

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 04 & 05/2013 dated 28/01/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad-II ]

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 06/2013 dated 28/01/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad-II]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE Mrs. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Mr. B.S.V. MURTHY, 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? No 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 Bhandari Glass Company 5-3-496/1, Old Topkhana Road, Opp: Osmangunj, Hyderabad  500 012 Andhra Pradesh Appellant(s) Champalal Bhandari Proprietor of Bhandari Glass Company and Karta of Rajasthan Glass House 5-3-496/1, Old Topkhana Road, Opp: Osmangunj Hyderabad  500 012 Andhra Pradesh Appellant(s)

Rajasthan Glass House 5-3-496/1, Old Topkhana Road, Opp: Osmangunj, Hyderabad  500 012 Andhra Pradesh Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Hyderabad-II L.B Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad  500 004 Andhra Pradesh Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. Y. Sreenivasa Reddy, Advocate 7-1-216/4, Kushboo Silk Showroom, Balkampet, Hyderabad - 500 016 For the Appellant

Mr. S. Teli, AR For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 01/01/2015 Date of Decision: 01/01/2015 CORAM:

HON'BLE Mrs. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Mr. B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order Nos. 20031-20033 / 2015

Per: B.S.V. MURTHY

The issue involved is undervaluation of glass sheets imported by the two appellants namely Bhandari Glass Company and Rajasthan Glass House. There is a penalty on the proprietor and the Karta of the two appellants respectively.

2. The learned counsel submits that the documents based on which the department came to the conclusion that appellant had undervalued the glass sheets imported by them were not provided and therefore they could not defend the case properly before the original authority. As regards the impugned order he submits that appellant was asked to deposit the entire amount of duty which could not be deposited and therefore the appeals have been rejected on the ground that appellant has not fulfilled the directions in the stay petition.

3. After hearing both the sides, we find that in respect of Rajasthan Glass House, the differential duty of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight lakhs only) arose because of declaration of lower amount of freight than what was actually paid. The amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight lakhs only) arising as a result of such declaration has been paid. As regards the balance amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty lakhs only), the learned counsel submits that there are contentious claims about the demand itself and appellant has not been provided opportunity, the matter may be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide on merits without any requirement of pre-deposit. As regards Bhandari Glass Company also, he submits that the total differential duty demanded is Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs only) and the circumstances are similar in that case also. We find that the only claim made by the appellants before the original authority was that the quality imported by them is inferior contrary to the findings of the original authority. Prima facie we find that appellants may not have a very strong prima facie case in their favour and therefore they should be required to put to some terms. However it may not be to the extent of what Commissioner (Appeals) has required them to do. In view of the above observations, if the appellant Bhandari Glass Company deposits an amount Rs. 75,000 (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) and Rajasthan Glass House deposits an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) within 8 weeks and report compliance to Commissioner, appeals may be decided by the learned Commissioner on merits after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellants to present their case after ascertaining compliance with requirement of deposits. Appeals and stay petitions get disposed of in above terms.

(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)

(B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER (ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

iss