2017 (10) TMI 470 - AT - Customs

Benefit of N/N. 80/70-Cus, read with N/N. 129/86-Cus - six sections of ten spindles each, being parts of Auto-Cone winding machinery - concessional rate of duty - Held that - It would appear from the impugned order that the first appellate authority has not given due consideration to the grounds on which original authority had extended the benefit of the said notification. That benefit is sought to be denied in the impugned order by casual dismissal - This finding of the first appellate authority does not appear to follow from any discussion in the order. Not only is such a finding not sustainable in law but is also not in consonance with the remand order - There being no justification for findings of the first appellate authority, it would appear that the impugned order must needs be set aside - benefit of exemption granted by the original authority is sustained - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Compliance with remand order of the Tribunal

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, the issue for determination was the compliance with the remand order of the Tribunal by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The appellant, M/s Shree Krishna Polyester Ltd, had imported machinery parts claiming benefits under the EPCG scheme. The goods were replacements for defective imports, and the appellant sought coverage under various notifications for concessional duty rates. The Tribunal had remanded the matter back to the original authority for fresh adjudication. However, the first appellate authority did not give due consideration to the grounds for extending the benefit of the notification. The appellate authority's finding, denying the benefit based on irrelevant grounds, was deemed unsustainable in law and not in line with the remand order. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal of M/s Shree Krishna Polyester Ltd was allowed, sustaining the exemption granted by the original authority.