9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Validity of the impugned order in appeal regarding the declared value of imported goods. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi involved the validity of an order in appeal where the Commissioner (Appeals) had reversed the order of the adjudicating authority regarding the declared value of goods imported by the respondents. The Revenue contested the impugned order, arguing that the Commissioner (Appeals) intended to remand the matter due to a violation of natural justice principles but lacked the power to do so. The learned Counsel for the respondent opposed the remand, stating that no fresh evidence was presented by the Revenue to warrant it. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority had rejected the declared price of the goods without proper grounds or communication to the respondents, leading to the reversal by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly set aside the order-in-original as it was passed arbitrarily and in violation of natural justice principles. The Revenue failed to provide any new material disputing the grounds for setting aside the adjudicating authority's order. Despite repeated requests, the adjudicating authority did not pass a speaking order explaining the rejection of the declared value. The Tribunal emphasized that without new evidence requiring reconsideration, the Revenue could not claim remand. As no material impacting the case's merit was presented, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision to set aside the original order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi upheld the impugned order, finding no legal infirmity in it. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the adjudicating authority's order due to procedural irregularities and lack of new evidence justifying a remand.
|
