9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 1303 - HC - CustomsValidity of Ex-parte decision of the tribunal to dismiss the appeal - CVD was paid utilizing DEPB Scrips - imported items were capital goods or not - Held that - In a matter of this nature, where an ex parte decision has been rendered by the Tribunal, the prolongation of a decision on the same is not beneficial to either of the parties. After all, the appellant seeks an opportunity to appear before the Tribunal. It is not recorded in the order of the Tribunal that the appellant herein was habitually absented themselves before the Tribunal. In para 2 of the impugned order, it is just stated that the matter was adjourned on earlier occasions and nobody turned up on behalf of the respondent(assessee). But, it is seen from the tabular column given by the appellant herein that after 3rd September 2013, the date on which the adjournment was sought for by the appellant, the case was taken on two occasions viz., on 24.12.2013 and 25.9.2014 and the Tribunal rendered the decision. Therefore, we are of the considered view that one opportunity can be granted to the appellant, especially, in view of the fact that the benefit granted to the appellant by the Commissioner (Appeals) was confined only to one of the scrips, that was issued prior to the public notice issued by the DGFT. - Impugned order is set aside - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Classification of imported goods under tariff heading 9018.19. 2. Eligibility of the appellant for DEPB benefit. 3. Ex parte decision by CESTAT. 4. Delay in disposal of appeal by CESTAT. Classification of Imported Goods: The appellant imported Extracorporal Lithotripter units and filed bills of entry. The Department classified the goods under tariff heading 9018.19. The appellant produced DEPB Scrips in accordance with Customs Notification No.34/97. A demand notice for duty was raised, which was dropped by the adjudicating authority but reversed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who considered the goods as capital goods. Eligibility for DEPB Benefit: The appellant was held eligible for DEPB benefit by the Commissioner (Appeals) for one of the two DEPB Scrips issued prior to a public notice by the DGFT. The Revenue appealed to CESTAT against this decision. Ex Parte Decision by CESTAT: The CESTAT allowed the Revenue's appeal ex parte in 2014 as the appellant did not appear or seek an adjournment. The appellant challenged this decision before the High Court, arguing that they had sought adjournments previously and deserved a fair hearing. Delay in Disposal of Appeal: The appellant presented a timeline of events showing attempts to attend hearings, but many were marked as "No Bench Sitting." The High Court considered the delay in the appeal's disposal and granted the appellant one more opportunity to appear before the Tribunal, emphasizing the need for a timely resolution. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal with a directive to dispose of the appeal within two months. This detailed analysis covers the issues of classification of imported goods, eligibility for DEPB benefit, the ex parte decision by CESTAT, and the delay in the disposal of the appeal, as addressed in the judgment by the Madras High Court.
|
