2000 (10) TMI 386 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in remanding the case for de novo adjudication?
2. Competence of the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass orders under Section 128A(3) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a search by Customs officers resulting in the seizure of foreign goods from the appellants' premises. The Addl. Commissioner of Customs, Jodhpur initially directed to drop the proceedings against the appellants. However, the Department appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur, who set aside the original order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication. The appellants contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have decided the matter instead of remanding it. The appellants relied on a previous decision, but the Tribunal found that the circumstances were different in this case. The Tribunal upheld the remand order, stating that the Commissioner (Appeals) had the right to remand the case for de novo adjudication as deemed fit.

2. The second issue revolved around the competence of the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass orders under Section 128A(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Respondents argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) had the authority to confirm, modify, or annul the decision appealed against, or refer the case back to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal carefully considered this argument and confirmed that the Commissioner (Appeals) was indeed competent to pass such orders under the specified section of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal emphasized that in cases where the appeal is not for enhancing penalties or fines, the Commissioner (Appeals) has the discretion to remand the case for fresh adjudication as deemed appropriate.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the appellants, stating that the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in remanding the case for de novo adjudication. The Tribunal upheld the competence of the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass orders under Section 128A(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, emphasizing the authority to refer cases back for fresh adjudication. The Stay Petition of the appellants was rejected, and the appeal was also dismissed after thorough consideration of all submissions.