|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 1794 Records
-
2016 (12) TMI 888 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Pre-deposit - smuggling racket - opportunity of being heard not provided - Held that: - We have passed above order being guided by the ratio of the Apex Court in the case of Benera Valves Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise [2006 (11) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and also appreciating that Revenue deserves protection. We expect that no undue hardship shall be caused to appellants by this order when gravity of the matter as above is looked into - Compliance is directed for 6th of October, 2016.
-
2016 (12) TMI 887 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Confiscation - Determination of DEPB credit - Held that: - It would appear that the goods were not available for confiscation at the time of availability of the impugned order. The appellant had already remitted the redemption fine and penalties before export of the goods. Impliedly the goods were allowed to be exported by the proper officer after having complied with the terms of the impugned order. The actual date of receipt of the impugned order by the appellant, relevant only for determining the maintainability of the appeal, is not germane to the present proceedings. Had the goods not been in the custody of the customs authorities, the appellant would not have exercised the option to redeem them on payment of fine. Therefore, there is no miscarriage of justice in confiscating the offending goods - Penalty is imposed as a deterrent to prevent mis-declaration of this nature in future. Considering those circumstances and the value of the goods there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2016 (12) TMI 831 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Restoration of CHA licence - violation of Regulation 12 - Held that: - though the said Manish Sangani was found to have utilised the licence, the said Manish Sangani himself was a CHA. His licence was suspended. Though the licence was suspended, the Customs did not forfeit the authorisation in his favour and seize the documents in that regard. Therefore, the involvement of the Customs Officers was also directed to be probed by the tribunal. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, though upholding the charges and the findings of the inquiry officer in that regard, the quantum of punishment was interfered with. Once we have found that the licence was not in use from 29th March, 2012 and till date, then, the tribunal's order does not require any interference. It cannot be termed as perverse or vitiated by error of law apparent on the face of the record. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal - the CHA licence of the respondent would be restored.
-
2016 (12) TMI 830 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Correctness of circular - General Alert Circular No. 11 of 2013 (dated 30.09.2013) which was in turn based on Circular No. 21/2013-C1 dated 06.09.2013 - It is stated that the impugned circulars were preceded by a long standing classification of all varieties of seeds as “vegetable seeds” and spices having regard to their use. With the impugned General Alert Circulars, the CBEC had to depart from the earlier thinking which was reflected in the previous clarification dated 08.01.2002 by the Board itself to all customs authorities with regard to the proper classification of various kinds of seeds covered under Heading 09.04 of the Customs Tariff as opposed to Chapter 12 - inaction of the respondent in particular of the CBEC is leading to the considerable margin to the members of the association who have faced frequent harassment by way of furnishing bonds and in sometimes depositing differential duties on account of possible higher classification and consequently higher customs duty.
Held that: - the respondent CBEC is hereby directed to consider the representations dated 18.10.2013 and 31.07.2014 which are part of the record of this case and also give hearing to the representative of the petitioner’s association after advance notice on the basis of submissions made and on the basis of the material furnished - petition disposed off.
-
2016 (12) TMI 829 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Mis-declaration of value - non-fulfilment of stipulated export obligation specified for the first block - cancellation of EPCG authorisation - jurisdiction of Director General of Foreign Trade - licence issued at behest of Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence - Held that: - For the present and when there is no challenge to the statutory power, then, merely because the impugned show cause notice refers to the communication from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, it will not be possible for us to agree, on the strength of this alone, with Mr. Shroff that it is the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence which is dictating to the Director General of Foreign Trade as to how the powers under the FTDR Act should be exercised. We do not think that on the present material it can be concluded that the show cause notice is issued only at the behest of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. It would not be proper to record any conclusive findings.
EPCG licence - Held that: - We are also not impressed at this stage by the argument that the EPCG licences and their terms and conditions are not violated and still a show cause notice is issued only to please the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. If indeed the EPCG terms and conditions are not violated, then, it will be open for the petitioner to produce such material as is permissible in law. Merely because the show cause notice is issued does not mean that it would result in imposition of penalty. Once all the opportunities are available, then, we do not think that we should interfere with the show cause notice.
Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2016 (12) TMI 828 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Release of detained goods - issuance of a writ of Mandamus - case of the petitioner is that though the order of the appeal was delivered to him on 30.04.2015, the respondent has not implemented the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Air, Chennai - Held that: - The Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in various cases very categorically held that the order of the Joint Commissioner of Customs and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) clearly shows that the petitioner has not committed any violation, therefore, they should implement the order of the Commissioner of Customs in a true letter and dispute. Therefore, in my considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to get release of the gold, since the long delay in release of the goods would, no doubt, reduce its potency and its market value would deteriorate to the detriment of the petitioner. In this case, there is nothing has been shown on behalf of the respondent to substantiate their claim that necessary steps had been taken to obtain interim order of stay against the order of the authority dated 24.04.2015.
I am also convinced that mere filing of the revision against the order of appellate authority would not empower the respondent to deny release of the goods in question and the respondent have not given any proper explanation as to why no stay order has been obtained against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dated 24.04.2015, even though the said order said to have been challenged by way of further appeal. Therefore, in my considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer due to detention of the goods in question, which had been imported by the petitioner, hence, the petitioner is entitled to get release of the goods. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be disposed of directing the respondent to release the goods (gold) for the purpose of re-exporting subject to the petitioner complying with the conditions imposed in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) i.e., payment of redemption fine for re-export and personal penalty and also giving an undertaking to comply with the Order in Original, in the event the Department succeeds in the revision.
Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2016 (12) TMI 827 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Valuation - technical assistant and royalty agreement - royalty - whether value of royalty to be included in assessable value? - Held that: - though the appellants have been held to be related to the collaborator, but declared value has not been examined under Rule 4(3) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 for acceptance or otherwise in reference to test value. The Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that since there is no third party sale of these items, the Dy. Commissioner should have examined the provisions of relevant agreement. The Commissioner (Appeals) has thereafter allowed the appeal of the Revenue. This essentially means that the Commissioner (Appeals) has remanded the matter back to the original adjudicating authority.
Import of Neopolitan chocolates, cocoa butter and cocoa butter flavor - related party transaction - foreign collaborator agreement - valuation to be done under Rule 4(3) of the Customs Valuation Rules or under Rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules? - Held that: - So far as Neopolitan chocolates is concerned, it is a finished goods and it is totally unrelated to the collaboration agreement and, therefore, it cannot be a subject matter to the current dispute on account of the agreement entered into by the appellant. The Order-in-Original clearly held that the appellant and the foreign collaborator are related. However, these imports are not from the foreign collaborator and thus unless it is held that the supplier of these goods is related to the appellant, no charge under Rule 4(3) of the Customs Valuation Rules can be made. This argument regarding purchases not being made from foreign collaborator equally applies to the import of cocoa powder and cocoa butter flavors. Furthermore, Revenue has not shown that there is any restrictive clause or condition for import of cocoa butter and cocoa butter flavor from the foreign collaborator in the agreement. In these circumstances, Rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules cannot be invoked - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (12) TMI 826 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Demand of CVD on the goods imported by the appellant - applicability of Notification 49/2008-CX, as the goods were in pre-packaged condition in 250 gms., intended for retail sale - Held that: - identical issue has been decided in the case of Starlite Components Ltd. vs. CCE, Nashik [2013 (4) TMI 624 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], where it was held that the appellants are importing the impugned goods not for retail sale but for repacking, labelling and branding and selling the same in bulk to M/s. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. Therefore, they are not required to declare MRP in terms of Rule 3 of the said Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 as they are industrial consumers - impugned order unsustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (12) TMI 825 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Project import - The machineries imported were put to use for the intended purposes in the factory at Noida from 1989-90 till 11.05.1996 and the same were shifted to their factory at Silvassa, on closure of their Noida factory - whether the appellants are eligible for the benefit to reduced customs duty under PIR, 1986, for the machines and equipment imported under the nine Bills of Entry, during the period 1989-90? - Held that: - Regulation 7 of PIR inserted w.e.f. 07.01.1992 would have prospective effect and cannot be made applicable for the imports made during the period prior thereto.
The Tribunal in the case of Kores India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, [2016 (4) TMI 9 - CESTAT MUMBAI], has held that when the regulation was not in the statute when the goods were imported, such new regulation cannot be pressed in the service for denying the benefit of PIR - in the instant case, imports were made in December, 1989 and January, 1990 and SCN dated 31.10.97 was forwarded to the Appellants by Deputy Commissioner of Customs, vide his letter dated 14.09.2005.
Further, we also find that the Appellants have submitted reconciliation statement along with supporting documents for each of the nine Bills of Entry before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Affidavit of the Manager of the Appellants also testifies that the imported machineries were installed in their factory at Noida and were used for the manufacture of computers till the factory was shifted to Silvassa in May, 1996. Other records also duly submitted by appellants - With the above evidence on record substantiating the installation and use of the machines imported under PIR, we are satisfied that the Appellants are eligible for benefits of project import and are not inclined to accept the plea of the Dept. to remand the matter pertaining to the period 1989-90 at this stage.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (12) TMI 824 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Imposition of ADD - import of Tetrafluoroethane - import from China PR - Notification dated 30/05/16 - Held that: - Sinochem Ningbo belongs to Sino group. We note that the assertion made by the first appellant that Sinochem Ningbo was no longer part of Sino group has also been dealt with by the DA. The DA noted that any development post POI cannot be considered and further there is no documentary evidence in support of whatever development claimed by the first appellant. We have noted that in the written submission made by the first appellant before the DA it was submitted that Sinochem Taichang and Sinochem Ningbo as, two formerly related companies in the 300 subsidiaries, have no transaction between each other and it is impossible for Sinochem Taichang to know about operation of all its related companies. We further note that in a report dated 28/10/2005 of World Trade Organization, it was recorded that a single dumping margin only will be applicable when companies in the same group were involved in trading as well as exporting.
Incorrect determination of non-injurious price - Held that: - The return on investment has been fixed as per the standard practice in terms of agreed norms and in the absence of commodity or industry specific recorded evidence to show different percentage of such return we find no reason to interfere in such finding.
The volume effect as well as price effect of dumped imports with reference to price under cutting/under selling and price suppression and depression have been examined in detail by the DA. It was also noted that inventory levels of the domestic industries increased over the injury period. The DA concluded that the dumping margin of imports from China is substantial.
The appellants pleaded that there is no proper analysis of likelihood of continuation or recurring of dumping and injury caused by such dumping in the review done by the DA. We have noted that despite imposition of anti dumping duties there is continuous dumping of the subject goods from China causing continued injury to the domestic industry which apparently indicates likelihood of continued or intensified dumping of subject goods causing injury to the domestic industry. The DA has noted that in case of termination of anti dumping duty the dumping may intensify causing injury to the domestic industry.
The appellants have not made out any case with supporting evidence to persuade us to interfere with the findings of the DA and consequent customs notification imposing the anti dumping on the subject goods imported from China.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2016 (12) TMI 823 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Imposition of redemption fine and penalty in lieu of confiscation - import of rough marble blocks - mis-declaration of description - Held that: - I find that there is no merit in the appeals as adjudicating authority has correctly held that the goods imported are calcareous stone other than marble, which should be imported only under specific license during relevant period. To that extent, I uphold the impugned order.
As regards the redemption fine imposed, I find that the adjudicating authority has imposed redemption fine of ₹ 38 lakhs as against the landed cost of ₹ 23 lakhs or the market price of ₹ 61 lakhs. Various decision of the Tribunal on the same issue is that the redemption fine is to be imposed @ 20% of the enhanced value which in that case approx ₹ 4.6 lakhs, which I find will meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the redemption fine imposed in the case in hand of M/s Just Marble is reduced to ₹ 4.6 lakhs and in the case of Vaishno Marble, it is reduced to ₹ 4.6 lakhs. Subject to such modification, the impugned order of imposition of fine is upheld.
As regards the penalties imposed, I find that the penalty imposed on M/s Just Marble is ₹ 7.5 lakhs, which is excessive in relation to the value of landed cost of the marble. Hence, I reduce the same to ₹ 2 lakhs. The penalty imposed on Vaishno Marble is also imposed ₹ 8 lakhs which is reduced to ₹ 2 lakhs. The penalties imposed by me are as per the various decisions of the Tribunal, wherein it was held that the penalty should be imposed @ 10% of the value of the landed cost of the imported goods.
Appeal disposed off - quantum of redemption fine and penalties reduced - decided partly in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (12) TMI 822 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Valuation of imported goods - Electrical Kitchens Chimney, Gas Hobs, Cook Tops, Cooking Ranges, Built Ovens and Kitchens sinks - The cases of import of above described goods was registered in the Special Valuation Branch of Customs - Rule 8 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 or not? - Held that: - the Ld. Commissioner(appeals) order is not reasoned, as the findings is with reference to payment of lump sum fees and royalty paid by the importer to the collaborator which is relevant to one supplier i.e. M/s. Nardi Elettrodomestici Spa of Italy. In respect of this issue as against detailed findings given by the adjudicating authority Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) has not rebutted the findings of Ld. Adjudicating authority. We therefore find that the matter should be re-considered by the Commissioner(Appeals) - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (12) TMI 766 - CESTAT MUMBAI
100% EOU - confiscation of goods - import of yarn - Held that: - the entire case of duty demand and confiscation of the goods was made out on the basis of statements of various persons. Therefore in our view looking to the nature of the case the cross examination as was requested by the appellant ought to have been granted to the appellant in the interest of justice. Moreover, we observed that the submission made by the appellant that the imported goods though seized but after provisional release claimed to have been used by the appellant in their EOU unit for the manufacture of final product and the said final product was exported. The claim of the appellant is that since the final product has been exported, the export obligation required for EOU has been fulfilled therefore no duty demand can be confirmed. However the Commissioner has not given any findings on this issue. For this reason also the principles of natural justice was violated. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that matter needs to be re-considered by the Adjudicating authority - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (12) TMI 765 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Refund claim - unjust enrichment - Whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable in respect of raw material imported and consumed in the manufacture of a final product? - Held that: - We find that both the lower authorities even in the denovo proceedings denied the refund merely on the ground that imported goods were captively used for manufacuter of final product and as per the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in case of Solar Pesticide Pvt Ltd. [2000 (2) TMI 237 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], unjust enrichment is applicable on captive consumption. However, we observed that appellant has made submission before the lower authorities that though the imported goods were used captively but the price of the final product was not changed due to payment of duty on the imported goods. Moreover the appellant has produced C.A. certificate certifying that incidence of duty paid by the appellant has not been passed on to consumer. The appellant had also submitted that the price of the medicine manufactured out of the imported input i.e. DPCO price which is fixed by the government and therefore extra payment of duty does not influence the DPCO price of the goods. We observed that both the lower authorities have not considered all these above submission in the proper perspective as no finding was given on the aforesaid submission made by the appellant. Both the lower authorities were mainly confined to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Solar Pesticide Pvt Ltd. Here the issue is not that whether the provision of unjust enrichment is applicable or otherwise but matter has to be examined on the factual matrix in the facts narrated by the appellant, whether the incidence of the duty has passed on or otherwise, which both the lower authorities have failed to address. We therefore find that this is a fit case for remand to the original adjudicating authority who should consider all the submission made by the appellant and give cogent findings regarding the passing/not passing of incidence of duty paid on the imported goods - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (12) TMI 764 - CESTAT CHENNAI
EPCG scheme - restrain from taking any action till the completion of prescribed export obligation period - import of cranes - concessional rate of import duty at 3% permitted by notification no. 103/09-Cus dated 11 September 2009 - principle condition of furnishing certificate of installation was contravened and for diversion of the imported goods to an unauthorized site - appellant's capability to fulfill export obligation in doubt - Held that: - The authorization to the importer having been issued by the competent authority and amended by a Committee empowered to do so, it is not open for any other agency to question the bona fides of the license. A Larger Bench of this Tribunal has held, in Rainbow Silks Vs Commissioner of Customs (Exports), ACC, Mumbai [2015 (11) TMI 503 - CESTAT MUMBAI], held that Customs authorities are competent to initiate action against offending goods even in matters of violation of the Foreign Trade Policy. However, such an empowerment does not extend to questioning the scope of a validly issued license but is to be invoked for contraventions arising from the failure to discharge obligation or the conditions of import. Therefore, and in consequence, it is not open to the Customs authorities to withdraw the benefit of exemption or to curtail the period within which export obligation is to be fulfilled. It would appear that, in the present case, the adjudicating authority has done so. The impugned order has held that the appellant is incapable of meeting the export obligation and, thereby, Pre-empted that possibility well before the period of export obligation. This is patently improper.
The learned Authorized Representative made an earnest plea that the matter to be remanded back to the original authority to enable the adjudicating authority to consider the various developments relating the amendment of the license and arrive at a proper conclusion on the notice issued by him. We have rendered a finding on the flexibility of movable capital goods as well as on the error in alleging diversion of the goods. We have also noted that it is not open to the Customs authorities to initiate action for non-fulfillment of export obligation until the period of export obligation is complete. There is, therefore, no aspect that requires a further scrutiny by the lower authority. We, therefore, do not agree that a remand is necessary - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (12) TMI 763 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Unjust enrichment - whether the appellant is eligible for the refund of the amount or the said amount has been correctly credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund? - Held that: - It can be seen from the adjudication order and the impugned order that appellant is eligible for the refund as claimed by them. The only question that falls for our consideration is whether appellant has crossed the hurdle of unjust enrichment or not. It is undisputed that appellant had shown the amount claimed as refund as receivables in Balance Sheet, with a narration that this amount is due from Revenue Authorities. It is a common knowledge that when the amount is shown as receivables, it is not expensed out in the Balance Sheet, hence will not form a part of the cost of the final product manufactured. Since there is no dispute that the amount of refund sought was shown as receivables, appellant has been able to prove that he has not recovered the same their customer, we hold that the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.
-
2016 (12) TMI 762 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Denial of benefit of Notification No.21/2002-Cus. dt. 1.3.2002 - contractor of nuclear project - goods meant for project used therein - Held that: - The notification is concerned with the goods required for setting up of nuclear project having a capacity of 440 MW or more as certified by an officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India in the Department of Atomic Energy. Requirement of law is that described goods as specified in List 43 in the notification should be imported for the purpose of setting up of nuclear projects. Such fact is not in dispute. The second condition is that projects should be of 440 MW. That is also not disputed. The last condition is that the requirement of the goods as well as the capacity is to be certified by a specified officer of Govt. of India which is also not disputed. Appellant says that the goods imported was within the knowledge of the nuclear project authority. They were the essential party to the import since their name appears in the Bills of Entry also. He demonstrates that the goods were imported on account of the nuclear project. The sum and substance of the requirement of the notification is that the goods is subjected to exemption but not the person who imported. Therefore, without any doubt as to the import of the goods and use thereof in the Nuclear Project as per certificate issued by the Notified Authority not disputed by Revenue, there cannot be denial of benefit of the notification to the appellant - appeal allowed.
So far as the project import benefit is concerned, in view of grant of benefit under the notification, that ipsofacto allows such benefit.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (12) TMI 761 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Exemption benefit under Notification No.30/2004 dated 09.07.2004 - import of undyed and unprinted silk fabrics - non-fulfillment of condition stipulated in notification - Held that: - It is noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SRF Ltd. vs. Commr. Of Customs, Chennai [2015 (4) TMI 561 - SUPREME COURT] on the identical issue, allowed the appeal of the importer where the CEGAT found that only those conditions could be satisfied which were possible of satisfaction and the condition which was not possible of satisfaction had to be treated as not satisfied. - Following decision of Thermax Private Limited v. Collector of Customs (Bombay), New Customs House [1992 (8) TMI 156 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and Hyderabad Industries Limited v. Union of India [1999 (5) TMI 29 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and AIDEK Tourism Services Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [2015 (3) TMI 690 - SUPREME COURT] appellants were entitled to exemption from payment of CVD in terms of Notification No. 6/02.
In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the Order of the Ld.Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2016 (12) TMI 760 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Revocation of CHA licence - the goods were found to have been misdeclared in quantity and description; the goods were held to have been undervalued by five times and the importer-on-record was found to be a college student through whom an Import-Export Code had been obtained following which he issued a power-of-attorney to the alleged operator of the import business - SCN based on whims and surmises - section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 - Held that: - The suspension was ordered seven months after the search of premises. The charge-sheet was issued almost three months thereafter. It is also alleged that the inquiry was closed by issue of order-sheet on 11th February 2014 but the inquiry officer chose to re-open inquiry for cross-examination of the partner of the licence-holder about six months later. The revocation was ordered almost thirty months after the search of the premises of the licencee. The appellant did participate in the proceedings.
There is no justification for this delay that is so much at variance with the prescriptions in the Regulations. This compounds the casual manner in which the inquiry was conducted by placing reliance on statements that were recorded for purposes other than proceedings under the Regulations. The harsh penal consequence visited upon the appellant has compounded the disregard for deadlines prescribed in the Regulations - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (12) TMI 759 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Doctrine of res-judicata - appellant's grievance is that once the matter reached to finality by the appellate order dt. 13.6.85 (nearly 31 years ago) and all illegalities have been done by the department, no proceeding at all survived - Held that: - Law is well settled that repetitive litigation on the self-same cause is to be avoided following doctrine of resjudicata. Appellant's prayer is therefore justified to set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal emerging out of adjudication made on the basis of SCN dt. 6.8.85 as is apparent from the factual matrix set out herein before.
It is very painful to state that the assesse has been dealt to the detriment of justice from 1984. We also inform to the adjudicating authority that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Lanvin Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI [2015 (8) TMI 387 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has noticed that any undesirable delay made by the adjudicating authority to reduce litigation makes his order fatal - We observe that the order dated 31.08.2005 passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was in excessive exercise of his jurisdiction to the utter dis-regard to law. Therefore, that is set aside.
The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority with the directions to complete the re-adjudication afresh by March, 2017 - appeal allowed by way of remand.
............
|
