1997 (12) TMI 349 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Appeal against impugned order for non-payment of dues by a 100% export-oriented unit, time limitation for appeal under Customs Act, non-rejoinder of a party in the appeal, need for remand of the proceedings.

The judgment involves an appeal filed by the Collector of Customs, Jaipur, against a 100% export-oriented unit that failed to pay dues after setting up the unit with imported capital goods and raw materials. The unit stopped production and export, leading to seizure of goods by the Customs department. The adjudicating authority's order, which allowed clearance of finished goods upon payment by a third party, PIL, within a month, is challenged by the department.

The main issue addressed by the tribunal is the legality of the impugned order. The tribunal found the order defective as it did not address the proposed confiscation of goods or confirm the demand against the defaulting unit. The tribunal noted that PIL withdrew its offer to take over the unit and discharge liabilities, rendering the impugned order ineffective. Consequently, the department sought remand of the matter to rectify these deficiencies, a request the tribunal deemed legitimate.

Another issue raised was the time limitation for filing the appeal under the Customs Act. The respondent argued that the appeal was time-barred as it was not filed in the correct form. However, the tribunal held that the appeal was valid under Section 129D(1) of the Act, despite being filed in the wrong form, as it was essentially a proceeding under the correct section.

The non-rejoinder of RIICO Ltd. as a respondent in the appeal was also contested. The tribunal clarified that the liability primarily rested with the defaulting unit, and as RIICO Ltd. had disassociated itself from the matter, there was no requirement for its inclusion in the appeal. The absence of objection from either party regarding the seizure further supported the tribunal's decision on this issue.

Lastly, the tribunal addressed the need for remand of the proceedings due to the incomplete nature of the impugned order. It emphasized that the failure to debond the goods did not preclude confiscation or recovery of dues. Therefore, the tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for a fresh order after granting the appellant a personal hearing.