TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1089X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted since, as recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) himself at pages 4 and 5 of the impugned order, the appeal was filed with a prayer to remand, that is to say, the same must have been requested / prayed for during the course of arguments and hence, the word remand finds place at two places in the impugned order. In any case, even the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) as to allowing the Department appeal and prayer , satisfy that what is passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is a remand order, for which the appellant before the said authority had not made out any specific case as to violation of any of the conditions under Section 128A(3)(b) ibid. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is clearly in violation of the statutory prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... poses of assessment of duty under Rule 3(3)(b) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 and it was this order that was renewed vide Order-in-Original No. 16265/2011 dated 10.06.2011. It is also a fact borne on record that the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (SVB) had in fact accepted the declared value as the transaction value in the above Order-in-Original and the above facts are clearly captured in the Review Order-in-Original No. 24414/2014 dated 17.03.2014 wherein the issuing authority has also recorded that the above Order-in-Original (No. 16265/2011 dated 10.06.2011) was reviewed subsequently and accepted by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports) vide order dated 21.07.2011. 4. The importer thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellate authority appears to have considered the counter-claims of both the Department as well as the cross-objector and thereafter, has passed the common Order-in-Appeal C.Cus. No. 1743/2014 dated 25.09.2014 wherein he has annulled the Order-in-Original dated 17.03.2014 and thereby allowed the Departmental appeal and its prayer . In the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the first appellate authority has recorded at page 4 that the appeal has prayed for setting aside the order in original and to remand the case back to the original adjudicating authority for proper examination of all the records and evidences. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has ignored the specific challenge of the cross-objector as regards his power to rema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner (Appeals) shall, after making such further inquiry as may be necessary, pass such order, as he thinks just and proper, (b) referring the matter back to the adjudicating authority with directions for fresh adjudication or decision, as the case may be, in the following cases, namely : (i) where an order or decision has been passed without following the principles of natural justice; or (ii) where no order or decision has been passed after re-assessment under section 17; or (iii) where an order of refund under section 27 has been issued by crediting the amount to Fund without recording any finding on the evidence produced by the applicant : 10.1 From the above it is clear that the power of the Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st have been requested / prayed for during the course of arguments and hence, the word remand finds place at two places in the impugned order. In any case, even the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) as to allowing the Department appeal and prayer , satisfy us that what is passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is a remand order, for which the appellant before the said authority had not made out any specific case as to violation of any of the conditions under Section 128A(3)(b) ibid. 12. In view of the above discussions, we are satisfied that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is clearly in violation of the statutory provisions, for which reason the impugned order becomes unsustainable in law. He should have, after making such enq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
