9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 651/2015 & C/41727/2015 - FINAL ORDER No. 41274 / 2015 - Dated:- 23-9-2015 - Shri R. PERIASAMI, Technical Member And Shri P.K. CHOUDHARY, Judicial Member For the appellant : Shri Muthuvenkataraman, Adv., For the respondent : Ms. Indira Sisupal, AC (AR) ORDER: Per: R. Periasami, Since the issue involved in this appeal lies in a narrow compass, after disposing the stay petition, the appeal itself is taken up for disposal. 2. The present appeal is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) wherein he has set aside the OIO dated 03.06.2013 passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Customs (SVB), Chennai and remanded the matter to DC (SVB) to revisit the issue afresh to pass necessary orders in denovo o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Ltd., Vs. CC, Chennai 2008 (231) ELT 410 (Mad.). He submits that in the above case on identical issue the Honble High Court held that while remanding the case to the lower authority, the Tribunal cannot impose any pre-condition. He submits that the same ruling applies to the Commissioner (Appeals) also. He also places a copy of the letter dated 26.08.2015 addressed to AC, Customs and submits that in spite of interim stay ordered vide Tribunals miscellaneous Order dated 14.08.2015, they have paid EDD of ₹ 14,63,832/- (EDD @ 5% for three Bills of Entry). 4. On the other hand, the Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Doosan Infracore India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Chennai vide miscellaneous order No. 41154/2015 da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nclusion reached by the appellate Authority directing the petitioner to pay EDD equivalent to 5% of the Assessable value till the issue of the fresh order, in my considered opinion, is not maintainable for the reason that when the matter is remanded back to the file of the original authority, all the issues are to be adjudicated afresh, without being influenced by any of the observation. While so, viewing the impugned order, direction given to pay EDD equivalent to 5% of the assessable value, against the petitioner, in my view will prejudice the mind of the original authority while deciding the issue. Therefore, this Court, deleting only that portion of the order directing the petitioner to pay EDD equivalent to 5% of the assessable value, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in our view, not in accordance with the statutory provision. The statutory provision does not empower the Tribunal to impose such a condition for setting aside the order appealed and remit back to the adjudicating authority. It is needless to say that the Tribunal is a creation of the statute and it has to perform its function in accordance with the power conferred on it. Giving direction to the original authority while remitting back the matter is one thing to which it is empowered but imposing a pre-condition is a different thing with which no power has been vested with the Tribunal. The above Hon ble High Court Orders squarely applies to the facts of the present case as in this case the lower appellate authority has not decided the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
