2007 (9) TMI 74 - AT - Central Excise

The final order was recalled in the circumstances stated by the appellants and considered that whether the appellant is entitle for the benefit of Notification No. 65/88- Matter remanded for de novo adjudication with regard to correct liability of appellant

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of appeals due to non-appearance of appellants at the time of hearing.
2. Consideration of full grounds in Memorandum of Appeal.
3. Applicability of Notification No. 65/88-Cus for duty liability.
4. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue 1: The appellants failed to appear at the hearing despite receiving an adjournment letter, leading to the dismissal of appeals C/254/2004 and C/255/2004. However, they filed an application for restoration citing non-receipt of intimation regarding the hearing fixed on 12-1-2007. The appellants argued that they did not receive any communication after requesting an adjournment and relied on various decisions to support their plea for restoration.

Issue 2: The appellants contended that the Memorandum of Appeal grounds were not fully considered by the CESTAT, emphasizing that the Final Order did not address their claim for assessment at the Effective Rate of 40%. They asserted that they were not given sufficient opportunity to present their case in person, seeking a reevaluation of their appeal based on the grounds presented.

Issue 3: The main contention revolved around the applicability of Notification No. 65/88-Cus, which provides for an Effective Rate of duty at 40% for most of the imported items by the appellants. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner did not assess the applicability of this Notification, necessitating a re-computation of duty liability. The appellants' compliance with the conditions of the Notification was also considered in the context of penalty imposition under the Customs Act, leading to the penalty on the Managing Director being set aside.

Issue 4: The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, concluded that the Final Order needed to be recalled based on the appellants' submissions. It was determined that the duty liability should be recomputed considering the applicability of Notification No. 65/88-Cus. The penalty imposed on the Managing Director was deemed unwarranted, given the circumstances, and was subsequently set aside, allowing his appeal.

In summary, the Tribunal recalled the Final Order, restored the appeals, set aside the Commissioner's order, remanded the matter for re-computation of duty liability under Notification No. 65/88-Cus, and allowed the appeal of the Managing Director by overturning the imposed penalty.