9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S/Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (J) and S.K. Gaule, Member (T) REPRESENTED BY: Shri Setalvad, Advocate for Mulla Mulla, for the Appellant. Dr. T. Tiju, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: P.C. Chacko, Member (J)]. - In this application, the appellant seeks waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of customs duty of Rs. 47,19,628/- on 72 containers (with interest on duty) as also in respect of a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- imposed on them. This is second round of litigation. In the first round, we had set aside the order originally passed by the learned Commissioner in adjudication of the relevant show-cause notice, and requested the Commissioner to take fresh decision after examining certain evidence adduced by the par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mand order, it was made clear that the duty would be demand able, in the first instance, from this appellant, in the absence of proof of re-export of the containers. The quanta of fine and penalty were also directed to be redetermined depending on the decision on duty liability. The present appeal and application are against the order passed by the learned Commissioner pursuant to our remand order. 2. The case of the appellant as it is sought to be brought forth by their counsel today is that the learned Commissioner travelled beyond the scope of the Tribunal's remand order. The learned SDR submits that the remand of the case was for the limited purpose of considering any 'secondary evidence' produced by the assessee. It is submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng evidence. Every remand order of this Tribunal should be deemed to be an order for fresh decision in accordance with the law. In the present case, the law includes Section 138C ibid. This provision was not taken note of by the Commissioner. This apart, there is another fact which glaringly is against the appellant. They have expressly or tacitly admitted that they could not establish re-export of eight containers. We would like to consider this aspect for the present purpose. Prima facie, the appellant is liable to pre-deposit 1/9th of the amount of duty demanded by the Commissioner, which would work out to around Rs. 5.5 lakhs. We direct them to pre-deposit this amount of Rs. 5.5 lakhs within four weeks and report compliance on 6-9-2010. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
