9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Consideration of CBEC Circular dated 11-6-1990 in appellate order. 2. Seizure of questionable silver and liability of appellants. 3. Failure of the Appellate Authority to consider circular and relevant decisions. 4. Remand for reconsideration in light of circular and previous decisions. Analysis: Issue 1: Consideration of CBEC Circular The appellant contended that the appellate order failed to consider the CBEC Circular dated 11-6-1990, which mandated that if a Silver Bar with a foreign mark enters India, seizure should be considered by an officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner/Collector of Customs. The appellant argued that the circular was binding on the authorities, as emphasized in previous Tribunal cases. The failure to give due regard to the circular rendered the appellate order legally flawed and invalid. Issue 2: Seizure and Liability The Revenue, represented by the JDR, justified the seizure based on the discovery of questionable silver and the disownment of the goods by appellant No. 1. The Revenue contended that the other appellants should also be held liable, especially when appellant No. 2 claimed the goods were locally procured but were found to be of foreign origin. The Revenue argued against setting aside the order based on the circular's applicability. Issue 3: Failure to Consider Circular and Decisions Upon hearing both sides, it was observed that the appellate order, issued on 3-2-05, did not consider the CBEC Circular or the relevant decisions cited by the appellant's consultant. Despite the availability of these materials, the Appellate Authority did not utilize them to make an informed decision. The failure to acknowledge the binding nature of the circular and relevant precedents was deemed a departure from judicial discipline, rendering the decision questionable and subject to challenge. Issue 4: Remand for Reconsideration In light of the above issues, the Tribunal concluded that a rehearing by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was necessary. The ld. Commissioner was directed to reconsider the matter, taking into account the CBEC Circular, the cited decisions, and the legal requirements to arrive at a rational and lawful conclusion. Consequently, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, and all three appeals were disposed of accordingly. This detailed analysis highlights the key arguments, considerations, and directives outlined in the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata, emphasizing the importance of adhering to legal provisions, circulars, and precedents in decision-making processes.
|
