2013 (9) TMI 544 - AT - Customs

Payment of differential duty - issue involved in the case was regarding the demand of duty on the ground that crude oil was allowed to be cleared without payment of duty but actually the assessee had not been able to produce the correct reconciliation to show that they had cleared crude oil of interface - Held that - The issue needed to be decided on the factual matrix by the adjudicating authority after considering all the evidences that may be produced by the appellant before him at the time of hearing in denovo proceedings order set aside matter remitted back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh after following the principles of natural justice decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Demand of duty on clearance of crude oil without payment, appeal against lower authorities' orders, consideration of evidence, remand for reconsideration by adjudicating authority.

Analysis:

The appeal in this case challenges the order related to the clearance of imported and domestically procured crude oil without payment of customs duty. The appellant was directed to pay the differential duty for the quantity of Bombay High crude oil cleared without duty payment. The appellant argued before the first appellate authority, presenting evidence and permissions issued by lower authorities for the duty-free clearance. However, the first appellate authority upheld the lower authorities' decision, leading to the current appeal.

The main contention raised by the appellant was the lack of evidence to prove the legality of the department's issue. The appellant requested a remand for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority based on the evidence provided. The Additional Commissioner also supported the need for reconsideration, emphasizing that the permissions granted were not adequately considered by the lower authorities.

Upon careful consideration, the judges found the issue to revolve around the demand for duty on the clearance of Bombay High crude oil without payment. They noted that the appellant had not conclusively demonstrated the eligibility for duty-free clearance. While acknowledging the merits in the appellant's arguments based on the statements provided, the judges decided that the matter required verification by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, without delving into the specifics of the statements, the judges set aside the impugned orders and remitted the case back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for a thorough review of all evidence in denovo proceedings.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by remanding the case to the adjudicating authority for a reevaluation of the issue, ensuring adherence to the principles of natural justice. The judges refrained from expressing any opinion on the case's merits, keeping all issues open for further examination.