2015 (10) TMI 828 - AT - Customs

Remand of matter Consideration of issue relating to penalty and fines Appellants received order of Commissioner (A) remanding matter to adjudicating authority However there is no finding regarding fine and penalty and has upheld same Hence, there was confusion whether adjudicating authority will decide on fine and penalty which resulted in delay of 50 days in filing appeal Held that - Commissioner (A) in impugned order remanded matter to adjudicating authority on ground that appellants have already obtained amendment of advance licence from licensing authority and directed original authority to consider case based on advance licence Since on merit case already remanded to adjudicating authority, question of imposition of fine and penalty is linked to merits of case which is pending before adjudicating authority When appellants main grounds before Commissioner (A) is to set aside order including confiscation, lower appellate authority holding that there is no prayer for reduction of fine and penalty is not correct When issues on merit is remanded, fine and penalty also is to be decided by adjudicating authority afresh in his denovo proceedings Adjudicating authority directed to decide merits of case and on issue of confiscation, fine and penalty Decided in favour of appellant.

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, import of goods under Advance License, discrepancy in part numbers, imposition of penalty, remand to adjudicating authority, consideration of fine and penalty.

Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing Appeal:
The appellant filed an application for condoning a delay of 50 days in filing the appeal. The delay was attributed to confusion regarding whether the adjudicating authority would decide on fine and penalty after the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter. The Tribunal, considering the submission, condoned the delay and allowed the application.

2. Import of Goods under Advance License:
The issue revolved around the import of goods under an Advance License where the part numbers differed from those specified in the license. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority, noting that the appellants had obtained an amendment to the license. The Tribunal observed that the imposition of fine and penalty was linked to the merits of the case pending before the adjudicating authority.

3. Discrepancy in Part Numbers:
The discrepancy in part numbers between the imported goods and those specified in the Advance License led to the demand confirmation and penalty imposition by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the original authority to consider the case based on the amended license obtained by the appellants. The Tribunal emphasized that the adjudicating authority must decide on confiscation, fine, and penalty afresh during the denovo proceedings on the merits of the case.

4. Imposition of Penalty:
The Tribunal highlighted that when the main grounds of the appellants before the Commissioner (Appeals) were to set aside the order, including confiscation, the lower appellate authority's view that there was no prayer for the reduction of fine and penalty was deemed incorrect. The decision on fine and penalty was deemed integral to the merits of the case and was to be determined by the adjudicating authority after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants.

5. Remand to Adjudicating Authority:
Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the adjudicating authority. The direction was for the adjudicating authority to decide on the issues of confiscation, fine, and penalty while considering the merits of the case and providing a fair hearing to the appellants.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the delay in filing the appeal, the discrepancies in part numbers in imported goods under an Advance License, the imposition of penalty, and the remand to the adjudicating authority for a fresh determination on the fine and penalty issues in light of the amended license.

← Previous Next →