2015 (9) TMI 1132 - AT - Customs

Imposition of redemption fine - import of Limestone Blocks -imported goods were not covered by the license - Held that - Adjudicating Authority had given a detail finding to impose penalty and fine. We find from the impugned order that the appellant vide a letter Dated 09.10.2007 interalia submitted that they are regularly importing Limestone Blocks against a specific licence. However, now their licence has been expired and so they were not able to utilize the same. They have submitted documents in support of the contention. It is seen that the said letter was not considered by the adjudicating authority. In our considered view, the appellant should be given an opportunity to represent their case before the Adjudicating Authority in the interest of Justice. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Imposition of redemption fine and penalty on imported goods not covered by license
- Non-consideration of appellant's representation and documents by the Adjudicating Authority
- Request for remand to Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad, delivered by Mr. P.K. Das, addressed the issue of redemption fine and penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority due to imported goods not being covered by the license. The appellant's advocate submitted that they waived the requirement of a Show Cause Notice but had provided a representation with various documents for the case, which were not considered by the adjudicating authority. The appellant had also deposited a sum of Rs. 20 Lacs with the Department. On the other hand, the Authorized Representative for the Revenue argued that the Adjudicating Authority had provided detailed findings to justify the penalty and fine. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had submitted a letter stating their regular import of Limestone Blocks against a specific license, which had expired, preventing them from utilizing it. However, this letter and supporting documents were not considered by the Adjudicating Authority. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for the appellant to have an opportunity to represent their case in the interest of justice.

Moreover, the Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Authority to provide a reasonable opportunity for a hearing before passing a new order. The appellant's advocate assured cooperation with the Adjudicating Authority in the fresh adjudication process. Due to the case's age, the Tribunal urged the Adjudicating Authority to expedite the decision-making process. Ultimately, the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed by way of remand, highlighting the importance of a fair and thorough consideration of the appellant's submissions and documents by the Adjudicating Authority in reaching a just outcome.