9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Classification of fabric as furnishing fabric or dress material under Item 19I(1) and Item 19I(2; Validity of decisions by respondents; Adequacy of reasoning in appellate orders. Analysis: 1. The petitioners challenged the decisions made by respondents classifying certain fabric as furnishing fabric instead of dress material. The petitioners argued that if the fabric is dress material, it should fall under Item 19I(2) for duty calculation, whereas the Department classified it under Item 19I(1) resulting in different duty rates. The court noted the confusion in the revisional orders and criticized the lack of detailed reasoning in the appellate order, finding it unsatisfactory. 2. The appellate order, which was only five lines long, was deemed inadequate for a quasi-judicial proceeding. The court highlighted the need for a proper exercise of appellate powers and suggested the establishment of an Appellate Tribunal for Customs and Excise matters. The court decided to quash both the appellate and revisional orders and remand the matter back to the appellate authority for a proper disposal after considering all contentions. 3. The court granted the petitioners' prayer to quash the orders and start the proceedings anew from the appellate stage. Specifically, the court mentioned the successful contention regarding another fabric variety, Sort No. 7444, being classified as dress material. The court directed the parties to bear their own costs and emphasized the importance of a fair hearing and proper appreciation of rival contentions in the appellate stage. 4. The court allowed the petitioners to present further evidence at the appellate stage by making a necessary application. It set a deadline for the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal expediently, considering the original order's vintage and the need for a prompt resolution. The court stressed the importance of a thorough and timely appellate decision-making process in this matter.
|
