9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 843 - HC - Central ExciseValuation - tin coils of width above 600 mm seized from the godown - non-speaking order - HELD THAT - The Tribunal had not given any reason and had not considered the non-seizure, however made as if there was a seizure. When the order-in-original was challenged based on certain vital facts, the Tribunal, being the fact finding authority, ought to have given reasons for non-interference of the order-in-original. It is clear that the order of Tribunal is certainly a non-speaking order and the Tribunal failed to consider the grounds raised by the appellant. Merely reproduction of comments from the show cause notice or order-in-original is not sufficient for a Tribunal to dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant. Each and every ground raised should be sufficiently discussed by the Tribunal while passing any order, that too, upon recording the rival contentions raised by either parties before it. The order passed by the Appellate Authority does not show any light on such discussions and it is merely reproduction of the contents raised in the show cause notice. The Tribunal has not independently applied its mind for dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal is obligated to record the reasons for its decision and bereft of such reasons in the order impugned, order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside - the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on merits. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
1. Correctness of Tribunal's findings based on appellant's conduct and confiscable nature of goods. 2. Tribunal's adherence to its previous order for remand and supply of contemporaneous Bills of Entry. 3. Tribunal's consideration of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 in redetermining the value of imported goods. 4. Tribunal's observation on minimum floor price and licensing requirements. 5. Tribunal's consideration of the physical confirmation of seized goods. 6. Tribunal's consideration of reduced penalty under proviso to Sec. 114A of the Customs Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Correctness of Tribunal's Findings Based on Appellant's Conduct and Confiscable Nature of Goods: The appellant challenged the Tribunal's decision, arguing that it overlooked statutory provisions related to the correct value and confiscability of goods, as well as the sustainability of the penalty. The appellant contended that the Tribunal's findings were sweeping and failed to consider the legal grounds presented. 2. Tribunal's Adherence to Its Previous Order for Remand and Supply of Contemporaneous Bills of Entry: The appellant argued that the Tribunal did not take note of its earlier order, which remanded the case back to the original adjudicating authority with specific directions to supply copies of contemporaneous Bills of Entry. The Tribunal allegedly failed to ensure compliance with these directions, thus committing judicial indiscipline. 3. Tribunal's Consideration of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 in Redetermining the Value of Imported Goods: The appellant contended that the Tribunal overlooked the contention raised in the show cause notice regarding the redetermination of the value of imported goods under Rule 6 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The Tribunal relied on contemporaneous Bills of Entry without furnishing copies or establishing that such imports were at the same commercial level, thus failing to sustain the redetermination of value. 4. Tribunal's Observation on Minimum Floor Price and Licensing Requirements: The appellant argued that the Tribunal improperly observed that a minimum floor price of USD 465/MT (CIF) was prescribed by the Ministry of Commerce, and if the import price was lower, a license was required. This observation was not part of the proposals or contentions raised in the show cause notice. 5. Tribunal's Consideration of the Physical Confirmation of Seized Goods: The appellant claimed that the Tribunal overlooked their assertion that 16.5 MT of goods seized were of mixed sizes and were not physically confirmed as having a size over 600 mm. Thus, the seizure itself was illegal, warranting the unconditional release of goods instead of confiscation and redemption. 6. Tribunal's Consideration of Reduced Penalty Under Proviso to Sec. 114A of the Customs Act: The appellant argued that they had paid the entire duty and penalty before the issuance of the show cause notice. The Tribunal failed to extend the benefit of reduced penalty under the proviso to Sec. 114A of the Customs Act, which should have been considered. Judgment Summary: The High Court observed that the Tribunal's order was a non-speaking order, failing to provide reasons or consider the grounds raised by the appellant. The Tribunal merely reproduced contents from the show cause notice and order-in-original without independent analysis. The High Court emphasized the necessity for the Tribunal to give reasons for its conclusions, especially when the case had been remanded for fresh adjudication. The High Court cited various judgments underscoring the importance of reasoned orders and the requirement for appellate forums to discuss evidence and provide valid reasons for their decisions. The Tribunal's failure to do so warranted setting aside its order. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on merits, directing it to pass a reasoned order within twelve weeks. The appeal was allowed, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.
|
