9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 336 - AT - CustomsAppellate order before Commissioner (appeals) - internal discussions between the officers - Exemption from payment of Additional Customs Duty - importation of goods under these seven DFIA s - Held that - It is quite evident that the said endorsement is not a decision in itself which could have been appealed before Commissioner (Appeal). Further from the endorsement it is also not evident that whether the same was ever communicated to the respondent. Such an endorsement by the appraising officer and Assistant Commissioner on any receipt cannot be considered as decision which could have been appealed against before the Commissioner (Appeal). Such an endorsement is nothing but part of internal discussions between the two. Commissioner (Appeal) was clearly in error when he entertained the appeal against the endorsement made on the request letter of the Appellants and passed the impugned order. Such an order cannot be sustained. Matter remanded to original adjudicating authority for consideration of the request letter dated 30th July 2008.
Issues:
1. Appeal against order in appeal No 244 (DFIA)/2008 2. Exemption from payment of Customs duty against Imports under DFIA licenses 3. Verification of exports made by original licensee 4. Conditions specified by licensing authority for imports under DFIA 5. Request for deletion of endorsement in authorization 6. Appeal before Commissioner (Appeal) against remark by Assistant Commissioner 7. Assailing the order of Commissioner (Appeal) by revenue 8. Violation of principles of natural justice 9. Concerns regarding third-party rights in license endorsements 10. Contrary direction by Commissioner (Appeal) to delete endorsement 11. Premature appeal before Commissioner (Appeal) 12. Decision on endorsement not appealable 13. Remanding the matter to original adjudicating authority Analysis: The case involves an appeal against order in appeal No 244 (DFIA)/2008 where the Commissioner (Appeal) directed the deletion of CVD payment endorsement on seven DFIA licenses, allowing exemption from Additional Customs Duty on importation of goods. The respondents purchased these licenses from the original licensee, M/s Parle Products Pvt Ltd, for claiming duty exemption. The licensing authority specified conditions for imports under DFIA, subject to payment of applicable additional duty if CENVAT facility was availed during manufacturing. The Commissioner (Appeal) decision was challenged by the revenue, citing lack of a formal order under Customs Act, violation of natural justice, and third-party rights in license endorsements. The appeal highlighted that no formal order was passed by the jurisdictional officer regarding the request for deletion of the endorsement, rendering the appeal premature. The endorsement made by the Assistant Commissioner was deemed not appealable as it lacked communication to the respondent and was considered part of internal discussions. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeal) erred in entertaining the appeal against the endorsement, emphasizing that such internal remarks do not constitute a decision. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the revenue's appeal, remanding the matter to the original adjudicating authority for a decision on the request letter dated 30th July 2008, emphasizing adherence to natural justice principles and timely disposal of the matter. In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by remanding the case for the jurisdictional Assistant/Deputy Commissioner to consider and decide on the request letter, leaving all legal and factual aspects open for their determination. The emphasis was on procedural fairness and timely resolution, ensuring cooperation from all parties involved for the expeditious disposal of the pending request.
|
