9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Non-confiscation of impugned goods 2. Payment of interest 3. Dropping of proceeding against noticees Analysis: Non-confiscation of impugned goods: The first issue pertains to the non-confiscation of the impugned goods, with the main concern being the reclassification of the goods. The judgment highlights that the decision made by the adjudicating Commissioner to not confiscate the goods, which were already released, is deemed appropriate. This is due to the fact that there has been a demand for differential duty and the imposition of a penalty. The Tribunal concludes that there is no necessity to intervene in the decision regarding the confiscation of goods. Payment of interest: The second issue raised is regarding the payment of interest, as the Commissioner did not issue any specific orders in this regard. The Tribunal notes that it is established law that the department can recover interest as per the applicable law without the need for a separate order. Consequently, the appeal by the department on this ground is considered to be unsustainable. Dropping of proceeding against noticees: Lastly, the department expresses dissatisfaction with the dropping of proceedings against three noticees. However, the judgment clarifies that since no separate appeals have been filed against these noticees, the Tribunal is not obligated to make any rulings concerning them. As a result, the department's appeal is dismissed in its entirety. In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata, through the judgment delivered by the Member (T), upholds the decision of the adjudicating Commissioner on the non-confiscation of goods, dismisses the appeal regarding interest payment, and finds no grounds to address the issue of dropping proceedings against the noticees due to the absence of separate appeals.
|
