2017 (7) TMI 1114 - AT - Customs

Scope of SCN - Benefit of N/N. 13/2010-Cus., dated 9-2-2010 - timing equipments - Held that - admittedly, the impugned order did not address the issues raised by the respondent in his appeal against the original order, though reference is made to certain possible mistake on the part of CHA while dealing with import/export of the consignment - Commissioner (Appeals) misdirected himself in the final order portion by remanding the case for causing an additional enquiry against the CHA instead of giving a clear ruling on the correctness or otherwise of duty demand. The Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to decide the appeal of the respondent regarding the correctness of the order passed by the Original Authority, based on the materials placed before him - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) - Exemption claim under Notification No. 13/2010-Cus. - Dispute over timing equipments covered by undertaking - Correctness of duty demand and penalty - Commissioner's order not in conformity with Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The judgment involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) regarding an exemption claim made by the respondent under Notification No. 13/2010-Cus. The respondent, an Organizing Committee for CWG 2010, imported timing equipments for the Common Wealth Games 2010 and claimed exemption. A dispute arose over the timing equipments covered by the undertaking submitted by the respondent. The Original Authority held the respondent ineligible for the concession, imposing a duty demand and a penalty. On appeal, the Commissioner did not address the issues raised by the respondent, instead ordering an additional inquiry against the Customs House Agent (CHA) without deciding on the duty demand or penalty. This approach was found to be non-compliant with Section 128A of the Customs Act, 1962, which outlines the Commissioner's role in deciding appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) misdirected himself by remanding the case for an additional inquiry against the CHA, instead of ruling on the correctness of the duty demand. Without delving into the merits of the case, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal based on the materials presented. The judgment emphasized the need for the Commissioner to address the issues raised by the respondent regarding the correctness of the Original Authority's order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision. The respondent was granted an opportunity to present their case before a new decision was made. The judgment highlighted the importance of addressing the substantive issues raised in the appeal and ensuring compliance with the procedural requirements outlined in the Customs Act, 1962.