2012 (8) TMI 413 - AT - Customs

Claim of refund on the differential amount of duty paid - Commissioner (Appeals) re-remanded the matter - Held that - The power of remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) has been taken away by amendment to Section 128 of Customs Act, 1962 w.e.f. 11-5-2001, thus Commissioner (Appeals) have to decide the issue himself instead of remanding the matter the lower authority.

Summary

Issues:
1. Power of remand by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Correct calculation of C.V. duty on imported goods.
3. Discrepancy in recorded value of the consignment.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case revolves around the power of remand by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue contended that the amendment to Section 128 of the Act, effective from 11-5-2001, has restricted the power of remand by the Commissioner. Citing a Supreme Court case, the Revenue argued that the Commissioner's authority to remand has limitations. The case had been remanded previously, leading to a repetitive cycle, prompting the Tribunal to intervene.

2. The case involved an error in the calculation of C.V. duty on the imported goods. The appellant had paid duty based on an incorrect calculation, resulting in an excess payment of Rs.1,71,691. The discrepancy arose from the calculation being done on 5000 pieces of the consignment instead of the actual 500 pieces. Additionally, there was a discrepancy in the recorded value of the consignment, recorded as Rs.3527 instead of Rs.359.73. The respondents sought a refund for the differential duty amount, which was initially rejected by the lower authority.

3. The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions and records before issuing its judgment. It noted the amendment to Section 128 of the Customs Act, which curtailed the power of remand by the Commissioner. To prevent a repetitive cycle of remands, the Tribunal directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue himself instead of remanding it to the lower authority. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondent. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, ensuring a fair and just resolution of the matter.