TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey have any objection in transferring Miscellaneous Applications and the Appeals to the Division Bench of the Tribunal since important issues of law are involved in the matter. The Senior Counsel for the Respondents agreed to the said proposal of the Bench. However, the Ld. Special Counsel for Revenue insisted that first the subject Interim Order should be recalled, and Revenue has no objection for transfer of the pending Miscellaneous Applications and Appeals to Division Bench thereafter. We find it appropriate to transfer the hearing of the pending appeals C/10404-10407/2016 alongwith pending Miscellaneous Applications C/Others/10132-10135/2016 to the Division Bench in view of the important legal issues involved. The Registry is directed to list the Appeals and Miscellaneous Applications before the Division Bench expeditiously. Appeals are transferred to Division Bench. - C/10404-10407/2016 - M/10509-10512/2016 - Dated:- 21-10-2016 - Mr. P.M. Saleem, Member (Technical) For Appellant (s) : Shri P.R.V. Ramanan, Special Counsel For Respondent (s) : Shri V. Nankani, Sr. Advocate, Shri Hardik Modh, Adv. ORDER The above Miscellaneous Applications are filed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... column 13 of the Memo of Appeal against amount of duty, fine, penalty involved. It is also observed that the miscellaneous applications were heard by Single Member Bench on 21.3.2016, at which time the ld. Authorised Representative for Revenue did not raise any issue about the jurisdiction of Single Member Bench in hearing the matter. The ld. Authorised Representative, however, raised the issue of whether the Tribunal can hear an appeal against an order of Chief Commissioner rejecting compounding of offences applications. The said point was argued extensively by both sides and was examined by the Single Member Bench which answered the question in the affirmative. After disposing the preliminary objection, the said miscellaneous applications were taken up by the Bench, and after hearing both sides, passed the said interim order, following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in writ petition (L) No. 3609 of 2015 in Respondent s own case in the same matter, and also the decision of the Division Bench of the Tribunal at Mumbai in the identical case of Sandeep Nahar and another vide order No. 86301-86302/16/CB dated 29.02.2016. It is observed that the interim order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny other member of the Appellate Tribunal authorised in this behalf by the President may, sitting singly, dispose of any case which has been allotted to the Bench of which he is a member where- (a) the value of the goods confiscated without option having been given to the owner of the goods to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation under section 125; or (b) in any disputed case, other than a case where the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment is in issue or is one of the points in issue, the difference in duty involved or the duty involved; or (c) the amount of fine, or penalty involved, does not exceed fifty lakh rupees. The contention of the Revenue is that the impugned order dated 04.02.2016 of the Chief Commissioner of Customs, rejecting the Compounding Applications of the respondents as premature and therefore not maintainable, pertains to the issue of availment of excess draw back through over valuation of exports, non export of goods, fabrication of shipping bills, wrong availment of duty scripts, money laundering etc. involving an amount higher than the pecuniary limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the case of Navin Chemicals Manufacturing Trading Company Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs - 1993 (68) ELT 3 (SC). 11. It is observed that the Hon'ble Apex Court, at the first Para of its order dated 15.9.1993, in the said case stated as follows :- This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as CEGAT ). The order which granted special leave expressly confines it to the question whether a member of CEGAT sitting singly could in law have heard the appeal before it. The Hon'ble Apex Court after analysing the issue in detail concluded at Para 13 and 14 of the said order, as follows:- 13. The order of the Additional Collector under? appeal before CEGAT in the present case did not have any direct or proximate relation, for the purposes of assessment, either to the rate of duty applicable to the said goods or to the value thereof. All that the Additional Collector s order did was to confiscate the said goods allowing to the appellant the option of redeeming them upon payment of a fine of ₹ 10,000/-. That the appellant might avail of the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dated 21.03.2016 should be lifted, on merits. He argued that the said restriction on the department turned out to as if anticipatory bail is granted, and he submitted that the same could not have been the intention of the Hon ble Tribunal. The Ld. Special Counsel in his rejoinder also contended that the expression, in any disputed case should be read as to mean the root matter, i.e., fraudulent availment of duty drawback and exemption from duty. He also submitted that the provisions in Section 129C (4) should be considered as in harmony with the provisions of Section 135(1)(d). Citing the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Slotco Steel Products Limited [2011 (273) ELT (481) DEL], he contended that there is insegregable and proximate relationship between fraudulent availment of drawback and exemption from duty in connection with export of goods and Compounding of the Offence. 13. We find that the specific and direct issue before us in the appeals herein is whether the order dated 04.02.2016 of Chief Commissioner of Customs, rejecting Compounding of offences Applications of the Respondents as premature and not maintainable, is correct. The value involved f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 21.3.2016, the Tribunal has restrained the department from issuing summons and thereby has virtually brought the investigation to stand still. A perusal of the interim order dated 21.3.2016 does not bear out this contention of Revenue, as it is mentioned in the interim order that applicants are directed to cooperate with the department and the department would be free to complete investigation and issue show cause notice and proceed with the adjudication. It is therefore clear that department was free to issue summons etc. and complete the investigation. It was also open to Revenue to approach the Tribunal in case the other side was not cooperating with the department. Hence, this contention of Revenue has no merits. Revenue has also contended that the interim order dated 21.3.2016 was meant to be a temporary measure only, till disposal of the Miscellaneous Applications C/Others/10132-10135/2016 which was expected shortly. However, the same are found to be still pending. One of the reasons for the interim order was because Revenue asked for time to appoint special Counsel and for arguing the case. The interim order was therefore issued so as not to prejudice the inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
