9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1093X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Ld. Departmental Representative agree that there was no discussion on merits by the first appellate authority in the impugned order. It is deemed appropriate to remand the matter back to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals) for disposing of the appeal on merits. Though both the counsel have made respective submissions on merits and reference was also made to judicial pronouncements, it is felt improper to discuss anything on the same since, admittedly, the lower appellate authority has not given any findings on the merits of the case. The first appellate authority directed to comply with the principles of natural justice by hearing the appellant and thereafter, pass a speaking order on merits, in accordance with law - appeal allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 21/2002 (supra). It appears that the appellant did not question the reclassification as made by the adjudicating authority and chose to accept the duty demand along with interest, but however, with a request to remit the duty by debiting Served From India Scheme (SFIS) scrip by relying on paragraph 3.17.11 of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP). 3.2 The adjudicating authority, however, has not accepted the said mode of payment, for which he has referred to Customs Notification No. 91/2009 dated 11.09.2009. 3.3 It is against this denial of accepting the mode of payment of duty by debiting SFIS scrip, it appears, that the appellant preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority and it appears from the impugned Order-in-Appeal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmer Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore [2010 (256) E.L.T. 244 (Tri. Bang.)] (c) Tanfac Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner [2009 (244) E.L.T. A121 (S.C.)] 5.3 He would also invite our attention to the Foreign Trade Policy, which also recognizes SFIS scrip as a mode of payment for discharging the Customs Duty. 6. Per contra, Ld. Assistant Commissioner supported the findings of lower authorities. 7. Having heard both sides, we find that the issue lies on a very narrow compass. The first appellate authority having directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit which was not met by the importer, the Commissioner (Appeals) has simply rejected the appeal in limine , without going into the merits of the case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
