2011 (1) TMI 363 - AT - Customs

Appeal - Whether the impugned order is of an administrative order or a quasi-judicial order - In the earlier round of litigation where the permission of factory stuffing was denied to the appellant on negative report sent by the Jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner without looking into the report of the Asst. Commissioner, the same was challenged before this Tribunal and this Tribunal remanded back the matter to pass a speaking order - the Commissioner has passed the order on an application filed by the applicant for grant of permission. If any order is passed against any representation made by the assessee, the same become quasi judicial order and is appealable order. Factory stuffing of export goods - Shri Ramesh Bafna,father of the Director of the appellant firm is having shares in the appellant firm - As per law, Shri Ramesh Bafna and M/s. RIIPL are two different legal entities - For the act of M/s. RIIPL, Shri Ramesh Bafna has already been exonerated - If Shri Ramesh Bafna having any share in the appellant firm that does not make any adverse binding on the appellant firm. M/s. RIIPL, wherein Shri Ramesh Bafna is a Director, which was involved in fraudulent export also have no merits as Shri Ramesh Bafna has been exonerated by this Tribunal and there is no allegation found by the department against Shri Ramesh Bafna - As per Customs law, there is no bar to run two firms from the same address, denial of permission of factory stuffing on that premise is also not sustainable.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of permission for factory stuffing goods at the appellant's premises.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer exporter, appealed against the denial of factory stuffing permission at their premises. The denial was based on a negative report from the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise. The matter was remanded back to the Commissioner of Customs, who again denied the permission citing the presence of another company, M/s. RIIPL, operating from the same premises where a case of fraudulent export was booked. The appellant argued that the denial was irrelevant as the Director's father, associated with both firms, was exonerated in the previous case. The appellant and M/s. RIIPL were distinct entities, and there was no legal bar to multiple firms operating from the same address.

The key issue revolved around the nature of the order - whether it was administrative or quasi-judicial. The Commissioner's decision on the factory stuffing permission application was deemed quasi-judicial as it was in response to the appellant's representation, making it appealable. The precedent cited by the Respondent was deemed irrelevant as it was based on a Trade Notice, not a representation by the assessee. The second issue addressed was the association of the Director's father with both firms. Despite having shares in the appellant firm, the exoneration of the father in the fraudulent export case involving M/s. RIIPL was crucial. Customs law did not prohibit multiple firms operating from the same address, rendering the denial of permission on that ground unsustainable.

Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The decision highlighted the distinction between administrative and quasi-judicial orders, emphasizing the importance of considering representations by the assessee in such cases. The exoneration of the Director's father and the legality of multiple firms at the same address were pivotal in overturning the denial of factory stuffing permission.