9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in favor of appellant. - C/41082/2015 - FINAL ORDER No.41139/2016 - Dated:- 14-7-2016 - Shri P.K. Choudhary, Judicial Member and Shri C.J. Mathew, Technical Member Shri Harihara Kumar A.S. For the Appellant Shri M.Balamurugan, AC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER The present appeal is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) wherein he has set aside the OIO dated 30.08.2007 passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Customs (SVB), Chennai and remanded the matter to that authority to revisit the issue afresh to pass necessary orders in de novo on determination of value on the imports made from related overseas firm. While remanding the case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has also directed the appellant to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing applies to the Commissioner (Appeals) also. 3. Ld. D.R reiterates the impugned order. 4. After hearing both the sides, we find that the lower appellate authority in the impugned order set aside the OIO passed by the AC (SVB) and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to pass fresh orders for examining the case afresh on merits. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also directed the appellant to pay EDD at the equivalent of 1% of the invoice value till the issue of fresh orders. The limited issue in this appeal is whether the Commissioner (Appeals) while remanding the appeal has power to direct the lower authority to put pre-condition to decide the case in de novo. In this regard, we find that the Hon'ble High Court Orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Oxygen Ltd. (supra) is reproduced below:- 16. The Tribunal by an elaborate order after discussing the issues raised before it recorded a finding that the appeal before it was a fit case for remitting back to the original authority. The basis for recording such a finding is also stated as that the order appealed against before it was not a speaking order; that it has not answered the plea raised by the appellant; and that it has not discussed the relevant material i.e., the Chartered Engineer's certificate to find out whether the price mentioned therein was the price in respect of machine manufactured in the year 1965 or 1994. After reaching such a conclusion, the only power that could be exercised by the Tribunal is, to refer th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the adjudicating authority. This amounts to imposing precondition which will prejudice the mind of adjudicating authority. The Ld. AR relying on the Tribunal's decision in the case Doosan Infracore India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is not relevant to the facts of the present case, as the said order is only an interim order on different facts, where the Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the case on merits. The above Hon'ble Madras High Court's order is also followed in the case of Sungwoo Hitech India Ltd. Vs CC Chennai - 2016-TIOL-547-CESTAT-MAD. 6. By respectfully following the Hon'ble High Court's Orders above, we set aside that portion of the Commissioner (Appeals) order imposing 1% EDD. The appeal is allowed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
