9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are: 1. Whether the letter dated February 7, 2005 of the Superintendent of Customs could be considered as an appealable order? 2. Whether the minimum obligation on the part of the Revenue was to supply a copy of the bill of entry to the respondent when the triplicate bills of entry were already with the respondents? Issue 1: The case involved M/s. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. filing three Bills of Entry for import, which were proposed to be assessed under Section 14(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent challenged the final assessment order dated 7-2-2005 by filing an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Jamnagar under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as time-barred, but the CESTAT, Ahmedabad allowed the appeal and set aside the Order-in-Appeal, stating that the letter dated 7-2-2005 could not be considered an appellate order. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision on merits. Issue 2: In response to the order passed by the High Court, the Superintendent of Customs informed the respondent about the final assessment under Section 18(2) of the Customs Act, directing them to pay a differential duty. The respondents requested a copy of the final order along with the bill of entry, which was provided to them on 16-12-2005. The Tribunal held that the communication on 16-12-2005 showing the bill of entry to the respondent should be considered as the relevant date for challenging the same. The Tribunal further stated that the letter dated 16-12-2005 cannot be considered an order passed in appeal by the Commissioner. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's view, dismissing the appeal and ruling in favor of the assessee, stating that the appeal lacked merits.
|
