2017 (2) TMI 838 - HC - Central Excise

Levy of CVD - import of polyester knitted fabric - petitioner claim that on the goods imported by the petitioner Additional Customs Duty/Countervailing Duty (CVD) was not leviable as the goods were not liable to levy of excise duty but still the Commission upheld even that part of duty. Held that - Once it is found that CVD was not leviable on the goods imported by the petitioner, levy thereof by the Commission would certainly be contrary to the provisions of the Act, hence, the order to that extent cannot be legally sustained. Matter on remand for reconsideration.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission regarding assessment of customs duty, redemption fine, and personal penalty. Dispute over the levy of Additional Customs Duty/Countervailing Duty (CVD) on imported goods. Confession of counsel for the petitioner regarding payment of CVD. Scope of interference by the court in orders passed by the Commission.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission regarding the assessment of customs duty, redemption fine, and personal penalty. The petitioner imported goods, declaring a lower value, but the department assessed a higher value leading to a show cause notice. The Commission assessed customs duty and levied a redemption fine and personal penalty. The petitioner contended that CVD was not leviable on the imported goods, citing relevant judgments. The confession of the petitioner's counsel regarding CVD payment was disputed, and an application for modification was filed but not decided.

The court noted that the facts of the case were undisputed, focusing on the import of goods and the dispute over CVD levy. The court discussed the scope of interference in Commission orders, citing relevant Supreme Court judgments. The court found that if CVD was not leviable on the imported goods, the Commission's decision to levy it would be contrary to the law. Despite the petitioner's counsel's confession, the court decided to set aside the entire order and remit the matter back for fresh consideration due to the evolving legal position at the time of the Commission's decision.

The court emphasized that even though the counsel may have conceded to CVD levy based on the prevailing legal uncertainty, the order must align with the law. Therefore, the court directed the parties to appear before the Commission for a fresh consideration, disposing of the petition accordingly. The judgment highlighted the importance of legal correctness in Commission orders and the need for alignment with prevailing legal principles, ultimately ensuring fair and lawful decisions in customs and excise matters.