9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 843X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow 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. - C.M.A. No. 173 of 2018 and C.M.P. No. 2105 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 18-9-2019 - S. Manikumar and V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, JJ. Shri N. Viswanathan, for the Appellant. Shri K.S. Ramasamy, CGSC, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT The present appeal is filed against the final order No. 40487/2017, dated 8-3-2017 in C/237/2008-DB passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai. 2. The brief facts leading to the present case are that the petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in import and trading of various tin coils including secondary and defective tin free sheets used in various industrial production. During the course of their business, on the basis of the information received, the officers of DRI (Directorate of Revenue Intelligence) searched the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 112(a) of Customs Act. 6. The order-in-original dated 16-9-2003 was challenged by way of an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, wherein the Appellate Tribunal by its Final Order No. 1260/2006, dated 11-12-2006 had set aside the order-in-original dated 16-9-2003 and remanded the matter back to the department for fresh consideration and the Tribunal while doing so, has directed the department to offer opportunity to the importer to contest the proposal to enhance the value of impugned goods by furnishing copies of the Bills of Entries relied upon by them. 7. Thereafter, the respondent conducted a de novo enquiry and passed the Order-in-Original No. 7461/2008, dated 25-3-2008 and rejected the declared value for the past and live consignment and refixed the value. The appellant herein, being aggrieved by the de novo adjudication order dated 25-3-2008, had preferred the statutory appeal before the Tribunal in C/237/2008-DB and the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 40487/2017, dated 8-3-2017 had rejected the appeal and refused to interfere with the order-in-original dated 25-3-2008. 8. Aggrieved by the final order dated 8-3-2017, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fact of the appellant paying the entire duty and penalty even before the issuance of show cause notice and not extending the benefit of the reduced penalty under proviso to Sec. 114A of the Customs Act? 9. In support of the above questions of law, the appellant has canvassed mainly on the following grounds :- (a) The Tribunal seems to have passed the impugned order in utter haste and in a most mechanical manner with total non-application of mind, without taking into consideration any of the subtle and legal grounds canvassed by the appellant herein before it and in the process had overlooked the judicial pronouncements specifically brought to its notice and is thus, guilty of total violation to the principles of natural justice and judicial discipline, which require the impugned order passed by it to be vacated in limine. (b) The Tribunal had abruptly rejected the appeal filed by the appellant without giving any specific findings by not considering any of the statutory provisions relating to the determination of the correct value of the goods, the confiscability of the goods and the sustainability of the huge penalty on the appellant and in that view of the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sal of the appeal. 12. Heard the Learned Counsel appearing on both sides and perused the materials available on record. 13. It could be seen from the records that it is a second round of litigation, wherein which, earlier the Tribunal vide its Final Order No. 1260/2006, dated 11-12-2006 had set aside the Order-in-Original No. 1059/2003 (CAU), dated 16-9-2003 and remanded the matter back to the respondent for fresh adjudication. While doing so, the Tribunal has observed as follows :- 17. It was decided in Orion Systems v. CC., Cochin - 2005 (192) E.L.T. 1117 (Tri. - Bang.), and upheld by the Apex Court that the requirement that when Bill of Entry relied upon by the department to enhance value was not available on record, it could not be concluded that the goods imported on such Bill of Entry were identical to the goods imported by the assessee. In view of the above ratio, it is essential that the importer is given an opportunity to contest the proposal to enhance the value of the impugned goods by furnishing him copies of the Bills of Entry relied upon. As the duty, penalty, fine, interest, etc., depend on the assessable value to be determined, the impugned order is set as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that the appellate forum is bound to refer to the pleadings of the case, submissions of the counsel, necessary points for consideration, discuss the evidence, and then to dispose of the matter by giving valid reasons. (ii) In Tata Engineering Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune reported in 2006 (203) E.L.T. 360 (S.C.), the Hon ble Supreme Court, dealing with a case, whereby, a cryptic and non-speaking order, the Tribunal upheld the order passed by the Commissioner, by applying the ratio of the decision of a Larger Bench in TISCO Ltd. v. CCE, Madras [2000 (118) E.L.T. 104 (T. - LB)], without recording any findings of fact. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon ble Apex Court, while holding that it is not sufficient in a judgment, to give conclusions alone, but it is necessary to give reasons, in support of the conclusions arrived at, set aside the order of the Tribunal, holding that the findings recorded by the Tribunal therein, were cryptic and non-speaking, and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for taking a fresh decision, by a speaking order, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to both the parties. (iii) In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
