9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Non-receipt of show cause notice by the Appellants. 2. Incorrect exchange rate and denial of concessional duty under Notification No. 240/78. 3. Recording of finding on a ground not discussed in the original order. 4. Remand of the matter for examination of eligibility for concessional duty. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal dated 28-2-1991 of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) due to the Appellants not receiving a copy of the show cause notice before being served with a demand notice amounting to Rs. 1,28,785.90 for alleged short payment. The Appellants claimed they only became aware of the show cause notice during court proceedings, and the Collector (Appeals) erred in denying them the opportunity to respond to the notice. The Collector (Appeals) had also incorrectly based the order on grounds not urged in the proceedings, leading to a fundamental flaw in the decision-making process. 2. The issue of incorrect exchange rate and denial of concessional duty under Notification No. 240/78 was raised during the proceedings. The Appellants contended that they were entitled to exemption under the notification as they imported watch parts for manufacturing wristwatches in accordance with the approved production program. The Collector (Appeals) failed to give a finding on the admissibility of the exemption, and the matter should have been remanded to the Assistant Collector for proper consideration. 3. The Tribunal observed that the Collector (Appeals) should not have recorded findings on grounds not discussed in the original order-in-original and should have remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector for a proper determination of the eligibility for the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 240/78. The Appellants were directed to produce a certificate indicating compliance with the approved production program for the import of watch parts. 4. Due to the procedural errors and lack of proper consideration of the eligibility for concessional duty, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner, Customs for a fresh decision. The Appellants were given the opportunity to raise any issues regarding the service of notice as per the Customs Act, and it was emphasized that the matter should be decided expeditiously given its age. In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of procedural fairness, proper consideration of all relevant grounds, and adherence to legal requirements in customs matters, ultimately leading to the remand of the case for a fresh decision based on the directions provided by the Tribunal.
|
