|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 381 to 400 of 1760 Records
-
2015 (9) TMI 1388
Application for Modification / Rectification of mistake in the stay order - it was contended that services were rendered outside India and no part of the service was performed in India. Therefore, he submits that they are not liable for predeposit and also pleaded for revenue-neutrality as they are entitled for the entire credit of service tax paid under reverse charge. - Held that:- Tribunal can only rectify any mistake apparent on record in the said order and in this case there is no such mistake brought out by the appellant but only seeking to revisit the facts and findings of this Tribunal order [2015 (8) TMI 958 - CESTAT CHENNAI] Which amounts to review of the order and there is no powers vested with Tribunal to review its own order.
Any decision on debatable point of law cannot be treated as mistake apparent from record. The ratio of the Apex court decisions [2002 (12) TMI 87 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and Madras High Court decisions [2010 (12) TMI 698 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] are directly applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the forgoing discussions and by respectfully following the Apex Court and High Court decisions, we do not find any apparent and manifest mistake in the Tribunal’s interim order so as to exercise the powers to recall or modify the Misc order [2015 (8) TMI 958 - CESTAT CHENNAI] - Decided against assessee.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1387
Supplementary questions - Matter was already referred to larger bench in [2015 (6) TMI 695 - CESTAT MUMBAI] - matter to be placed before Third Member on the Supplementary questions:-
(i) In the facts and circumstances, whether the services have been received by the appellant-assessee beyond the Indian Territory and hence, not liable to Service Tax as held by Member (Judicial)
or
Whether the services have been received within Indian Territory and hence liable to Service Tax as held by Member (Technical).
(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances and in law, the benefit of section 80 is available to the appellant-assessee and no penalties are imposable as held by Member (Judicial)
or
Such benefit is not available and penalties are imposable under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 as held by Member (Technical)
-
2015 (9) TMI 1386
Commercial Training or Coaching Services - bonafide belief - extended period of limitation - Imposition of penalty and interest - Held that:- Something positive other than mere inaction or failure on the assessee's part or conscious withholding of information when assessee knew otherwise is required for invoking extended period. Although there was delay on the part of the appellant in providing information which may have led to delay in issuance of Show Cause Notice, the appellant has claimed the delay was caused as data from large number of centres had to be complied. There is nothing to even suggest that the appellant was deliberately causing delay to take advantage of time-bar. The fact that Delhi data was supplied without delay further supports the view that delay in providing information about outside-Delhi centres was not intentional to evade service tax. However, for invoking the extended period what is required to be established is that there was wilful mis-statement/suppression of facts. - allegation of wilful suppression of facts is not sustainable. Similar view was also been held by CESTAT in the case of Gargi Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [2013 (5) TMI 695 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]. As a consequence, the demand of ₹ 71,50,372/- is hit by time bar and hence the same is not sustainable
Regarding demand for normal period - Held that:- Even after the demand was confirmed and the issue no longer remained res integra, the appellant did not remit the said demand. It clearly shows that failure to remit of service tax was not because of any reasonable cause because had it been so, the appellant would have remitted the service tax after the issue was settled in favour of Revenue by Supreme Court. Therefore, the appellant is not eligible or qualified for the benefit of Section 80 ibid. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1385
Renting of Immovable Property Service - Penalty u/s 76, 77 & 78 - Held that:- If the tax is due as on 6 th of March, 2012 and if the same has been paid alongwith interest within period of six months from the date on which the Finance Bill, 2012 received the assent of the President, no penalties shall be imposable for failure to pay the service tax. - Demand is for the period 2007-2011 and the same was payable on 6 th day of march 2012. The liability of service tax in full alongwith interest has been discharged within the six month from the date on which Finance Bill received assent of the President, which was ending on 28/11/2012, the appellant has paid liability on 26/11/2012. In this undisputed facts, appellant has made out a clear case for waiver of penalties in terms of Section 80(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. I therefore invoking Section 80(2) set aside the penalties imposed under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act. - The appellant has not pressed made this discrepancy either before the adjudicating authority or before the Commissioner (Appeals) and no documentary evidence was submitted before the said lower authorities. Therefore same cannot be verified at this stage therefore demand is upheld - Penalties are set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1383
Waiver of pre deposit - C&F Agent and GTA service - Held that:- Tribunal in the case of M/s. Prakash Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai (2013 (1) TMI 740 - CESTAT CHENNAI) has already granted stay following the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2012 (12) TMI 150 - DELHI HIGH COURT), prima facie, the service tax demand on C&F agency is waived and recovery thereof stayed during the pendency of the appeal.
As regards GTA service, we find that during the period in dispute the appellants were unregistered partnership firm and the unregistered partnership firms were brought into service tax net with effect from 1.7.2012. Prima facie, the appellants have made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit. Accordingly, waiver of pre-deposit is granted on GTA services availed and recovery thereof stayed during the pendency of the appeal. - Stay granted.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1382
Maintainability of appeal - Monetary limit - Held that:- Impugned order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 35A which is specified under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 35B. In view of second proviso to section 35B(1), this Tribunal has discretion to refuse or to admit the appeal in respect of order referred to clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) where amount of duty, amount of fine or penalty determined by such order does not exceed ₹ 50,000/- (before 6/8/2014) and ₹ 2 lakhs (on or after 6/8/2014). - Appeal not maintainable - Decided against assessee.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1381
Denial of credit on parts of surface miners used in the mines - Availment of credit on CCTV Cameras used in the Kiln - Whether percentage of eligibility of credit is 75% or 100% on the goods cleared under project imports prior to 1.3.1997 - Held that:- As per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court, Madras, we have examined the admissibility of credit on each of the inputs used in the mines and whether the appellants have their own captive mines. This Tribunal in CCE Trichy Vs The India Cements Ltd.[2015 (9) TMI 1391 - CESTAT CHENNAI] in appellant s own case dealt the issue of use of capital goods and inputs in their own captive mines. Therefore, there is no dispute on the use of parts of surface mines in the capital goods at mines. Further, we find that in the appellant's own case, the Tribunal in the case of CCE Trichy Vs India Cements reported in [2009 (10) TMI 701 - CESTAT CHENNAI] had held that credit on Lubricants used in machinery like surface miner, dumper, etc. in captive mines and are admissible for credit. It is seen that there are a large number of decisions holding the eligibility for capital goods which are used in the mines and outside the factory premises.
Appellants are eligible for credit on parts of surface miners. Further, we find that the goods were imported under project import as is evident from the show cause notice and rightly classifiable under 9801 and not under chapter 8430. The act of the department in seeking to classify the goods under Chapter 8430 as against 9801 being clearly traversing beyond the show cause notice, is not sustainable in law. - As regards admissibility of 100% of credit on the project import goods, we find that credit goods were imported in March 1996. We find that on a perusal of D-3 declaration submitted on 22.3.96 which is annexed in page 23 and 24 of the paper book, the capital goods were received in the factory on 22.3.96. Therefore, the date of receipt of capital goods in the appellant's unit is relevant. - appellants are eligible for credit on parts of surface miners, CCTV Cameras installed in the Kiln and they are also eligible for 100% credit on the CVD paid on the goods imported under project imports. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside
-
2015 (9) TMI 1380
Denial of CENVAT Credit - Whether the respondents are entitled to Cenvat credit of Education cess and Secondary & Higher Education cess when inputs are supplied by 100% EOU, paying duty under Sr. No. 2 Notification No. 23/2003-CE dated 31.3.2003 - Held that:- When goods have been removed from EOU to DTA, availing the exemption under Sr. No. 2 of Notification No. 23/2003 (ibid) there is a restriction carved out by the formula provided in the proviso to Rule 3(7)(a). This restriction is to prohibit taking credit on the BCD component. But credit is available on the Additional Customs duty (CVD) component. As already stated, Additional Customs duty includes excise duty as well as cess on this excise duty. Therefore the respondents are entitled to take credit of an amount equivalent to the Additional Customs Duty inclusive of excise duty and cess thereon.
Though the decision in Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd case [2008 (1) TMI 147 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] which has been followed in the later judgement noted above, was rendered prior to the amendment inserting the second proviso to Rule 3(7) (a), the principle enunciated therein alongwith the other judgments are correctly applicable to the present case. The legislature in its wisdom has brought forth the amendment of adding the second proviso to Rule 3(7)(a) w.e.f. 7.09.2009 to suppress the mischief, clear the confusion and resolve the same. Therefore I do not find any reason not to allow the Cenvat credit on the Education Cess and SHE Cess Component, Forming Part of CVD. In view of the above discussions, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed - Decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1379
Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 - Purchase of clandestinely cleared goods - Held that:- it is an admitted position that incriminating documents were recovered from the appellant's office in Mumbai, which indicated that the appellant has purchased clandestinely cleared goods from the manufacturer. In his statement, both the manufacturers and brokers have admitted the position. - penalty imposed is in order. Further, penalty imposed is not on the higher side - Decided against assessee.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1378
Denial of refund claim - CENVAT Credit - whether or not appellant is entitled to refund of an amount paid by the appellant representing CENVAT credit availed on inputs used in the manufacture of finished goods lost in fire accident when appellant has recovered the said amount from the Insurance Company - Held that:- The final order passed by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court [2013 (4) TMI 532 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] held that above amendment carried out in Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules is only prospective and not retrospective - In the present appeal also the period of dispute is before 07.09.2007, therefore, the law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court squarely applies to the case of the appellant and has to be followed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1377
Removal/ Shifting of goods from the old factory to the proposed factory (adjacent premises) without payment of duty - Confiscation of goods - Held that:- Technically there are some procedural irregularities committed by the appellants. However, the fact remains that the appellants themselves informed about the shifting of the raw materials, etc. within five days of the shifting, applied for registration within the next two days and they have sufficient balance in the Modvat credit/PLA account to take care of the liability while shifting the goods. Moreover, immediately on shifting the goods, the same account would be available as credit of duty in the adjacent premises.
Thus, though technically the confiscation of the goods is in order. However, keeping in view of overall circumstances, we do not see any reason to impose redemption fine of ₹ 42 lakhs. In our view ends of justice will meet if the redemption fine of ₹ 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) is imposed. Further, we find that whatever demand has been made could have been paid from the Central credit account/PLA and further the same was available as credit on the same date in the adjacent premises.
Further, the revenue themselves have allowed the shifting of the accumulated PLA balance as well as Modvat credit was allowed based upon the appellants request letter dated 11/03/2011. Keeping in view the overall circumstances of the case, in our view there is no need to demand the duty. Finished goods were cleared on payment of duty from new premises. Work-in-progress goods were converted into finished goods and cleared on payment of duty. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the present case, we therefore, set aside the demands made. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1376
Demand of interest u/s 11AA - whether demand of interest under Section 11AA is sustainable or otherwise - Held that:- Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 57I and Sub-Rule (8) of Rule 57U of CER clearly stipulates the recovery of interest where the appellant ails to pay amount determined within 3 months from the date of order the interest shall be payable as per Section 11AA of CEA. By virtue of the above provision of Rule 57(I) and Rule 57(U), Section 11AA is made applicable for demand of interest in recovery of modvat cases. - once the demand is confirmed and the same is upheld by the higher Appellate Forum the interest is automatic. The appellants having availed and utilized the credit for payment of excise duty which is due to the govt. interest is leviable for which no notice is required. - interest is payable on the amount already confirmed and upheld by the Tribunal which was belatedly paid only after the Tribunal's order. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld - Decision in the case of CCE & C Aurangabad Vs Padmashri V.V.Patil S.S.K. Ltd. [2007 (7) TMI 6 - HIGH COURT, BOMBAY] followed - Decided against assessee.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1375
Suo moto availment of credit - whether suo motu re-credit of the credit already reversed is permissible and no refund claim is required to be filed - Held that:- The issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of ICMC Corporation (2014 (1) TMI 1473 - MADRAS HIGH COURT) - Taking of credit on the basis of available documents, without disputing their genuineness, cannot be equated with the case of self refund. - There is no stipulation in the Cenvat statute that an assessee is required to obtain prior permission from the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities for making any debit entry in the Cenvat records. Hence, in absence of any specific prohibition to that effect, it is not appropriate to disallow the Cenvat benefit, to which the respondent is statutorily entitled to. This Tribunal in the case of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant v. CCE [2002 (3) TMI 169 - CEGAT, BANGALORE] has held that correction of errors and omissions in the entries would not require permission of the Department. - Decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1374
Denial of CENVAT Credit - Capital goods - Held that:- According to the respondent, the steel items, in question, have been used in fabrication of the Coal Ground Hopper, Iron Ore Ground Hopper, Coal Crusher House, Conveyor System, Stock House, After Burning Chamber, Kiln Coller Transformer House etc., which according to the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), are parts of the machinery and hence, are covered by the definition of capital goods. The grounds of appeal do not dispute the above uses of the steel items and in the grounds of appeal it is simply stated that the items fabricated are supporting structures. I do not accept this plea of the department, as from the nature of the items fabricated, it is clear that the same are component of the various machinery and hence, have to be treated as components of capital goods and accordingly, the steel items used in fabrication of the same would be eligible for Cenvat credit in terms of Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In any case, since on the issue involved in this case, there were conflicting decisions of the Tribunal, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Continental Foundation Joint Venture (2007 (8) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), no mala fide can be attributed to the respondent and accordingly, the longer limitation period under proviso to Section 11A(1) would not be available to the department and the demand is time barred. - Decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1373
Denial of CENVAT Credit - Whether appellant is eligible to the Cenvat credit on the inputs claimed to have been used in the manufacture of capital goods, construction of the plant as well as installation of machinery etc - Held that:- In view of fair submission of the appellant and also development of the law, appellant is directed to make an application to the Adjudication authority within a month of receipt of this order to fix the hearing for readjudication afresh on the issues involved as emerged from the show-cause notice. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1372
Manufacture - Immovability - office furniture systems / work stations manufactured and cleared without payment of duty - Held that:- Respondents failed to justify that the items are immovable property and also we find that respondents have not filed any cross objection against Revenue's appeal or any submission before this Tribunal. Therefore, by respectfully following Supreme Court's decision [2011 (2) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], we set aside the impugned order - Decided in favour of Revenue.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1371
Denial of CENVAT Credit - Whether appellant is eligible to the Cenvat credit on the inputs claimed to have been used in the manufacture of capital goods, construction of the plant as well as installation of machinery etc - Held that:- In view of fair submission of the appellant and also development of the law, appellant is directed to make an application to the Adjudication authority within a month of receipt of this order to fix the hearing for readjudication afresh on the issues involved as emerged from the show-cause notice. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1370
Undue benefit of Target Plus Scheme (TPS) - Export of cut and polished diamonds (CPD) without value addition - warehousing of imported CPD - it is alleged that after import, the goods were taken into private bonded warehouse and without processing the same were removed for export within 3-4 hours or the next day as the case may be. - Rejection of declared FOB value of diamonds - Penalty u/s 114 - Misdeclaration - contravention of the provisions of Section 14 and Section 50 of the Act read with Section 11 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 and Rule 11 & Rule 14 of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993.
Held that:- Commissioner has not relied upon any evidence to show that minimum value addition of 5% or more cannot be achieved by such processes. The show cause notice also does not refer to any evidence on this point - if diamonds are segregated into a homogenous lot based on their size and quality, the value shall change even by employing simple labour intensive processes like sieving, boiling and assorting. The only piece of evidence we find on the relationship between the value addition and the process is in the form of representation made by Gem and Jewellery Export Promotion Council vide letter dated 23.10.2006 which relies on the same Circular of the CBEC while dealing with the various schemes in the Policy affecting the business of gem and jewellery including diamond industry. We are informed that the Customs Officers in charge of the bonded warehouse on being satisfied, have also cancelled the bonds, which aspect has been completely overlooked by the Commissioner.
Section 14 of the Act provides that where duty is chargeable on ad valorem basis, the value shall be deemed to be the price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale for delivery at the time and place of importation or exportation as the case may be in the course of international trade. There is no dispute about the CIF value declared by the Indian companies in the bills of entry. Rather such CIF value has been adopted by the Commissioner, to be the correct FOB value. We shall deal with this aspect later in detail when dealing with circular trading. Value addition is a concept under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP).
On the question of valuation, the Commissioner also records that evidences disclosed in the show-cause notice, there is an allegation that the FOB value declared is not genuine on account of control by AEL over all the overseas parties involved in the transactions as buyers or sellers of diamonds. Having recorded this objection, the Commissioner does not give any categorical finding thereon but instead treads into the question of circular trading. We therefore prefer to deal with this issue in the context of valuation and circular trading as the department has also heavily relied upon the allegations in the show cause notice on the inter relationship between AEL and other Indian companies as well as AEL and overseas entities.
There is no allegation of common shareholding except for the subsidiaries. It is also not shown that AEL has the power to appoint Directors or control the composition of Board of Directors of companies in which its employees or its Directors are also partners or Directors. It is not shown that AEL holds sufficient shares or voting power to control the decisions of the entities in which its Directors are also Directors or in which its employees are also Directors or Partners. Mutuality of interest must be proved both ways. It is interest in the business of each other which proves that the parties are related. The inquiries made through the Indian High Commission, Singapore or Indian Consulate in Dubai have not brought out any such factual position on either shareholding pattern or control over the composition of the Board of Directors of the overseas entities except the two subsidiaries.
As long as price of exports to independent parties in respect of whom there is no allegation of relationship is available, the same would apply to all other exports including those made to related persons. This is notwithstanding the fact that the department has failed to discharge the onus of proving relationship between AEL and overseas entities - department has failed in discharging the burden cast upon it to produce any tangible evidence in respect of the charge of over-valuation or circular trading. For the same reason, the judgment in Steel India Company vs. CCE, [2014 (12) TMI 1035 - CESTAT MUMBAI] is of no assistance to the department. - declared FOB value is accepted to be the correct FOB value under Section 14 of the Act and to that extent the order of the Commissioner is set aside.
Stand of the department in the show-cause notice to be self-contradictory. If the same lot is circulated into India a number of times, it is only rational to take the CIF value only once for the same lot to support the allegation of circular trading. By not doing so, and by accepting the CIG value of each individual consignments of imported diamonds, the department has admitted each consignment to be different from the other, and not of the same goods, thereby militating against their own case of circular trading. The Indian companies contend and rightly so, that the implications of acceptance of CIF value means each time a new consignment has been imported unrelated to any other in the past or future, duly corroborated by remittance of foreign exchange through banks or authorised dealers equal to the value of the goods received in India. Correspondingly in relation to exports, receipt of foreign exchange through banks and authorised dealers as proceeds of exports in compliance with the provisions of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.
Payment of commission would be relevant for calculating the value addition if and when the pending applications for grant of duty free scrip under TPS is taken up by the competent authority. - Section 114 of the Act does not create vicarious liability. It is an action in personam. It is therefore necessary to show how each of these individuals acted in a manner which resulted in mis-declaration of FOB value to render the goods liable to confiscation under Section 113(i). We find no justification has been provided by the Commissioner in the order. The statement of these individuals are exculpatory, besides not being adversely implicated by others. In any case, we have set aside penalties on all concerned as aforesaid. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1369
Denial of exemption claim - Served From India Scheme - Whether the benefit of exemption notification No.92/2004-Cus. dt. 10.9.94 availed by the appellant in respect of import of restricted goods i.e. Radars, Navigational Equipments, VHF Equipments & DME Equipments etc. under SFIS is correct or otherwise - The appellants contention that DGFTs clarification on import/export shall prevail over customs and customs authority cannot interpret the policy is not at all relevant to the facts of this case - Held that:- There is no dispute on the fact that the goods, Radars & VHF & DME are restricted items under ITC (HS) EXIM code and there is no dispute on the fact that para 3.6.4.5 of FTP 2004-09 (RE-2006) stipulated that SFIS can be utilized for customs duty adjustment only on the goods which are freely importable and not to any restricted items. - It is relevant to state that as rightly held by the adjudicating authority in his findings at para-30 of order that the department has not challenged the importability of impugned goods under FTP but the dispute is restricted to payment of customs duty on the restricted goods through SFIS scrip under the Notification 92/2004. The appellants are entitled to utilize the SFIS scrips for import of any capital goods which are freely importable. That being the case, there is no overlapping of power of DGFT or Customs vice versa.
It is a fact that SFIS scrips are issued based on foreign exchange remittance received over previous years and the DGFT issued the SFIS scrips to appellant on 4.7.2006 and utilization of scrip should be as per the condition of FTP as existed on the date of import. It is a settled law that any clause policy provision should be strictly enforceable prospectively w.e.f. from the date of such amendment. In the present case, para 3.6.4.5 of FTP 2004-09 (Re-2006) w.e.f. 1.4.2006 stipulates the utilization of SFIS scrip for customs duty only on the freely importable goods and the customs notification 92/2002 allows exemption as per the policy in force. Therefore, there is no promissory estoppel attracted in the present case.
SFIS scrip should not allowed to be used for payment of customs duty on the Restricted goods i.e. on Radars, Navigational Equipments, VHF & OME Equipments which are restricted for import under ITC (HS) EXIM code and the exemption provided under Notfn 92/2002-Cus. Is not applicable for use of SFIS scrip for adjustment of customs duty on import of the said restricted goods.
Assessee inadvertently utilized the said SFIS scrips for payment of Customs duty towards import of Radars, and other equipments which are restricted items under policy. The Executive Director in his statement clearly admitted before the Department that they agreed to pay the entire customs duty and they paid the entire customs duty voluntarily under various TR challans. These facts are on record and the same cannot be brushed aside or ignored as there are voluntary statements from responsible senior executives persons in charge of Finance & Planning including the Executive Director Finance and are fully aware of the legal provisions of FTP and Customs exemptions notifications. Therefore, the adjudicating authority rightly denied the exemption under Notfn 92/2004. - Demand of duty confirmed.
Confiscation and redemption fine - Held that:- When the goods are not available for confiscation, by respectfully following the ratio of the Hon’ble High Court decisions [2012 (9) TMI 386 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and [2008 (4) TMI 320 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH], we hold that the appellants are not liable for redemption fine.
Levy of penalty u/s 112 - held that:- considering the overall circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that appellant paid entire customs duty during investigation itself and before issue of SCN reduction in penalty is warranted in respect of imports made through Chennai and Mumbai. - penalty reduced - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1368
Maintainability of appeal - Seizure of goods - Section 110(A) - whether the appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner under section 110(A) of the Customs Act 1962 lies before the Tribunal or not - Held that:- From the provisions of Section 110A of the Act it is a clear mandate that under section 110A the decision is to be taken by the Adjudicating Authority for imposing conditions for release of seized goods provisionally. - any person aggrieved by decision or order passed by the Commissioner of Customs as an adjudicating authority may appeal to this Tribunal. Therefore, under section 110A the order of provisional release is being passed by Commissioner Customs as adjudicating authority and aggrieved from the said order appeal can be filed before this Tribunal under section 129 A(1) of the Act.
With these observations, we are not in agreement with the decision of the larger bench of this Tribunal in the case of Akanksha Syntax Pvt. Ltd. [2013 (9) TMI 138 - CESTAT MUMBAI] and same is required to be reconsidered by a Larger Bench.
Registry is directed to place the records before the Hon'ble President for consideration and to constitute the Larger Bench of this Tribunal to decide subject issue.
............
|
9911796707
