2015 (10) TMI 2443 - AT - Customs

Determination of value of imports made from overseas Pre-condition of 5% of EDD Appellant contended that directions of Commissioner (Appeals) can be limited to proceedings and cannot order 5% EDD Revenue submits only 1% of extra duty deposit has been ordered till finalisation of provisional assessment. Held That - Relying on the orders given by Hon ble High Courts in cases of Terumo Penpol Ltd. Vs. CC 2015 (6) TMI 500 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and National Oxygen Ltd., Vs. CC, Chennai 2008 (7) TMI 174 - HIGH COURT MADRAS , 5% EDD is set aside Appeal allowed in favour of the Appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals) to direct payment of 5% EDD after remanding the case.
2. Applicability of High Court orders in similar cases.
3. Imposition of pre-conditions by lower appellate authority.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals)
The appellant challenged the Commissioner (Appeals) order directing payment of 5% EDD after remanding the case. The appellant argued that such a directive was beyond the Commissioner's jurisdiction under Section 128 A of the Act. Citing relevant case laws, the appellant contended that the Commissioner's power to modify or remand should not include imposing EDD pre-conditions. The Tribunal noted the appellant's submission and analyzed the legal precedents provided.

Issue 2: Applicability of High Court Orders
The Tribunal referred to the High Court orders in cases similar to the present appeal, where the High Court had set aside orders directing payment of EDD. The Tribunal quoted the High Court's reasoning, emphasizing that imposing pre-conditions like EDD could prejudice the adjudicating authority's decision-making process. By citing these High Court judgments, the Tribunal established a legal basis for setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order imposing 5% EDD.

Issue 3: Imposition of Pre-conditions
The Tribunal found that the lower appellate authority's directive to pay 5% EDD was unjustified, as the case was remanded for fresh adjudication without any pre-conditions. Relying on the High Court rulings, the Tribunal concluded that such pre-conditions could influence the adjudicating authority's decision unfairly. The Tribunal differentiated the present case from a previous interim order, emphasizing that the current situation involved remand without any final decision on merits.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the portion of the Commissioner (Appeals) order imposing 5% EDD. By aligning with the High Court's decisions, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of fair and unbiased adjudication without prejudicial pre-conditions. The stay petition was also disposed of in favor of the appellant.