9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rors resulting in the impugned order and the present challenge. 5. The background of this case, is that the Petitioner had imported certain semi-finished Coaxial Cables in the year 2011 and an allegation of undervaluation was raised against the Petitioner. The goods were, consequently, detained on 2nd December, 2011. The Petitioner sought provisional release of the goods and the same was permitted subject to certain conditions including furnishing of a bank guarantee. 6. After completion of investigation, a Show Cause Notice was issued on 31st October, 2012 and customs duty to the tune of Rs. 29,66,805/- was demanded. The Bank Guarantee was also proposed to be encashed. In response to the Show Cause Notice, a reply was filed and finally the Order-in-Original was passed on 30th September, 2013. In terms of the said order, the demand of custom duty was confirmed and the goods were confiscated. However, the Authority gave the Petitioner an opportunity to redeem the goods subject to payment of a redemption fine to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs. The operative portion of the said order reads as under: "xxx xxx xxx (ii) I, hereby, confiscate the goods totally valued at Rs. 1,09,80,032/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2017. 10. On 18th January, 2018, which is the order that has caused the confusion leading up to the present petition, the CESTAT observed as under: "xxx xxx xx 4. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the imported goods were in semifinished condition and same were not available in the retail market. The market inquiry was made out in the prevailing market price and Government approved Valuer in his valuation report dated 29.11.2011 submitted his report based on weight components of the constituent materials of the said semi-finished co-axial cables. 5, But on the other hand, Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the value on the basis of NIDB data. The respondent has also fled a copy of VAT return where the value was declared and the same support the value at the time of return. From the Record, it appears that the Chartered Engineer certified that appellants have imported a semi-finished goods in terms of prevailing international price of the material for the purpose of reducing the value. The said Chartered Engineers was never cross examined. But the Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the value on the basis-of NIDB data of the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both the parties and was disposed of by order dated 18.01.2018. Thereafter, ROM was filed by the Department in view of the contradiction between para 6 and 7 of the order dated 18.01.2018. The matter was listed on 21.11.2023 and as last opportunity, time was granted to the respondent, but it appears that on subsequent dates on 02.01.2024 and 16.01.2024 none appeared for the respondent. Matter is listed today, however, the respondent is still absent. 2. We have heard learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue and have perused the records of the case and we find that the error pointed out in the order dated 18.01.2018 seems to be correct. The observation in para 6 and 7 are quoted below: "6. In view of the above, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), which is based on NIDB data is not maintainable. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue, is dismissed." 3. From the above, it appears that the order of the Commissioner relying on the NIDB data has not been found to be maintainable and, therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was required to be allowed. Hence, we modify the order to that extent that the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed and pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order dated 5th April 2019 to hear the matter on merits. 18. Such contradictory orders could not have been passed by the CESTAT in the same appeal. The final order dated 14th October, 2024 again shows that CESTAT has not considered that the matter was to be finally heard in terms of order dated 5th April, 2019. The proper course of action would have been for CESTAT to completely re-hear the matter on merits which it has not done. 19. At this stage, reliance is also placed upon the INSTRUCTION dated 2nd November, 2023, issued by the CBIC wherein monetary limits have been fixed for filing of appeals by the Department. In terms thereof, for CESTAT appeals, the monetary limit would be to the tune of Rs.50 lakhs. The relevant portion of the circular is extracted below: "In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 131BA of the Customs Act, 1962 and in partial modification of earlier instruction issued from F. No. 390/Misc./163/2010-JC dated 17.08.2011, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (hereinafter referred to as the Board) fixes the following monetary limits below which appeal shall not be filed in the CESTAT, High Court and the Supreme Court: S. No. Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
