9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 45 - HC - CustomsWhether the Tribunal is right in law in remanding the matter to the appellate authority with a direction to pass appropriate order on the basis of the outcome of the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Aman Medical Products Ltd. 2010 (4) TMI 1049 - SUPREME COURT , where it was held that refund granted subject to the condition that assessee will have to file an undertaking in this Court, within four weeks from today. Held that - The impugned order has restored the issue to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter, after the Supreme Court takes a decision on an appeal field by the Revenue from the order of the Delhi High Court in the case of Aman Medical Products Ltd., v/s. Commissioner of Customs 2009 (9) TMI 41 - DELHI HIGH COURT which has been admitted by the Apex Court on 1st April, 2010. The impugned order of the Tribunal remanding the matter of the Commissioner (Appeals), is without considering the applicability of the law laid down in the case of Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2000 (8) TMI 88 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . Appeal is restored to the Tribunal for fresh disposal.
Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding the entitlement of an assessee to claim a refund of duty without challenging an assessment of a bill of entry. 2. Validity of the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) remanding the matter to the appellate authority based on the outcome of a decision pending in the Supreme Court. Analysis: 1. The appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 challenged the Tribunal's order dated 21st September, 2017. The Revenue raised a question of law regarding the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter to the appellate authority for appropriate orders based on the outcome of a pending decision of the Supreme Court in a related case. The core issue on merits was whether an assessee could claim a refund of duty without challenging the assessment of a bill of entry. 2. The Tribunal had initially allowed the Respondent's appeal in an order dated 9th May, 2006, which was later challenged by the Revenue in the High Court. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the appeal back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. However, the subsequent order passed by the Tribunal on 21st September, 2017 did not address the parties' contentions or the applicability of relevant legal precedents. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the Commissioner (Appeals) pending a decision by the Supreme Court in a related case, which was deemed contrary to the High Court's directions. 3. The High Court found the Tribunal's order to be nonspeaking and contrary to its previous directions in a related case. Consequently, the High Court set aside the order dated 21st September, 2017 and restored the appeal to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with the law. All contentions were left open for further consideration. 4. As a result of the appeal's disposal, the High Court declared that nothing remained pending in the Notice of Motion, which was also disposed of as infructuous. The judgment emphasized the importance of adherence to legal principles and directions provided by the court in similar matters for the proper disposal of appeals under the Customs Act, 1962.
|
