9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 1093 - AT - CustomsMaintainability of appeal - failure to comply with the requirement of pre-deposit - Classification of imported goods - HDPE Pipes - to be classified under CTH 89051000 or under CTH 391721? - HELD THAT - The first appellate authority having directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit which was not met by the importer, the Commissioner (Appeals) has simply rejected the appeal in limine , without going into the merits of the case. Both the Ld. Advocate and the Ld. Departmental Representative agree that there was no discussion on merits by the first appellate authority in the impugned order. It is deemed appropriate to remand the matter back to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals) for disposing of the appeal on merits. Though both the counsel have made respective submissions on merits and reference was also made to judicial pronouncements, it is felt improper to discuss anything on the same since, admittedly, the lower appellate authority has not given any findings on the merits of the case. The first appellate authority directed to comply with the principles of natural justice by hearing the appellant and thereafter, pass a speaking order on merits, in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the classification of imported goods under CTH 89051000, the applicability of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., the denial of accepting the mode of payment of duty by debiting SFIS scrip, and the rejection of the appeal by the first appellate authority without considering the merits of the case. Classification of Imported Goods: The appellant imported HDPE Pipes by classifying them under CTH 89051000 to claim a 'Nil' rate of duty as per Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. The Revenue contended that the goods should be classified under CTH 391721 based on the HSN General Note to Chapter 89, which excludes certain parts and accessories of vessels. This led to the issuance of demand notices to the appellant, who justified their classification in response. Denial of Mode of Payment by Debiting SFIS Scrip: The adjudicating authority, in Order-in-Original No. 18334/2012, did not accept the appellant's request to remit the duty by debiting the SFIS scrip, citing Customs Notification No. 91/2009. This denial prompted the appellant to appeal the decision, leading to a pre-deposit requirement by the first appellate authority, which was not initially met by the appellant. Rejection of Appeal Without Considering Merits: The first appellate authority directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit for the appeal, which was not fulfilled. Consequently, the appeal was rejected without delving into the substantive merits of the case. Both the appellant's counsel and the Departmental Representative acknowledged the lack of discussion on merits in the impugned order. Judgment: The Appellate Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a thorough consideration of the appeal on its merits. Given the absence of a detailed examination by the first appellate authority, the Tribunal refrained from discussing the case's substance or the parties' arguments to avoid influencing the subsequent proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of complying with principles of natural justice, directing the first appellate authority to issue a detailed order on the case's merits within six months from the Tribunal's decision date, which pertained to the year 2013.
|
