9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uency induction furnaces from United Kingdom. The invoice bears the date 15-11-1978. On 28-11-1979 the goods were bonded in the public bonded warehouse. On 10-4-1982, the appellant filed ex-bond Bill of Entry for clearance, visited the warehouse and found the goods damaged. On 15-4-1982, the appellant/applicant applied to the Assistant Collector for survey of the goods for the purpose of assessing the damage and the Assistant Collector on the very next day informed the appellant that the request is granted subject to the condition that no abatement of duty will be granted on damage or loss, if noticed during the survey. Duty was paid on 22-4-1982. On 23-4-1982, the surveyor M/s. Ravinder Kumar and Company surveyed the consignment under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Collector (Appeals). Thereupon the appellant filed Appeal No. C/3603/87-A before the Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the condition put by the Assistant Collector that the request seeking survey is allowed subject to the condition that no abatement will be granted, was illegal. The Tribunal held against all the reasons given by the Assistant Collector in rejecting the request for refund. On the question whether the goods qualified as warehoused goods , the Tribunal held that when the goods were warehoused, the law prescribed period of three years for warehousing the goods, though it was cut down to one year subsequently and the goods qualified as warehoused goods . In regard to the reason that the survey was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to assess the value as per the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 22 and charge duty on such value. The Tribunal also pointed out that if any survey is required to be conducted or examination report required to be recorded, it is the duty of the Department to have these things done and the importer cannot be blamed for inaction on the part of the Department. The Tribunal also referred to the decision in the case of Drillco Metal Carbides v. Collector of Customs, Bombay - 1990 (48) E.L.T. 138 (Tribunal) = 1990 (29) ECC 433. 5. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Department cannot escape its responsibility of fixing the value for the purpose of abatement and to grant abatement. In this view, the Tribunal set aside the impugned ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stituted a flagrant violation of the remand order of the Tribunal, that in regard to the matters concluded by the findings of the Tribunal the adjudicating authority had no right to conduct a fresh examination, nor could he urge fresh reasons for rejecting the refund claim and since there was gross and flagrant violation of the directions of the Tribunal, the order has to be treated as illegal and nullity. Shri M. Ali, JDR pointed out that in regard to the condition originally put by the Assistant Collector to the effect that survey is allowed subject to the condition that no abatement of damage will be given, there was no specific finding by the Tribunal. This does not appear to be correct since the Tribunal did refer to this aspect and ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ul exercised. The powers of the Tribunal are no doubt limited. Its area of jurisdiction is clearly defined, but within the bounds of its jurisdiction, it has all the powers expressly and impliedly granted. The implied grant is of course, limited by the express grant and, therefore, it can only be such powers as are truly incidental and ancillary for doing all such acts or employing all such means as are reasonably necessary to make the grant effective. 9. It will be useful to refer to the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. - 1991 (55) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.) :- The order of the Appellate Collector is binding on the Assistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction and the order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 26-6-1997 has flouted the orders of the Tribunal and deviated from the findings of the Tribunal. In doing so, he has violated the norms of judicial discipline. His attempt was somehow to get over the orders of the Tribunal. If it was felt that the remand order passed by the Tribunal was not in accordance with law, the Department could have sought appropriate remedy from the higher forum. Instead of doing so, the adjudicating authority tried to short circuit the procedure by going against the findings and directions of the Tribunal. This certainly cannot be countenanced. We find that in the case of Wazir Steel Industries - 1997 (95) E.L.T. 45 (Tribunal) = 1997 (21) RLT 654 (Tribunal) in a similar situation the Tribunal set aside the de no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
