Remanded

Subicsha Coconut Producers Company Ltd. v. Cochin-cus

CESTAT2 Aug 2018C/21628/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal remanded the appeal back to the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal found that authorities ignored well-settled pleadings regarding Central Government sponsorship and duty saving calculations, which required assessment and passage of a speaking order.

What did the court decide?

Matter remanded back to the adjudicating authority to pass a speaking order afresh considering all legal pleas of the appellant.

Subicsha Coconut Producers Company Ltd. vs Cochin-cus — Customs and Excise | CESTAT (2018)

¶1

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE

¶2

Appeal(s) Involved:

¶3

C/21628/2017-SM

¶4

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 78/2016-17 dated 30/08/2016 passed by the Commissioner of Customs , Cochin (Appeals)]

¶5

Subicsha Coconut Producers

¶6

Company Ltd. NP 9/708A, Chlikara, Naduvannur Po Appellant(s) Perambra Kozhikode – 673 614 Kerala

¶7

Versus

¶8

Commissioner of Customs Cochins Custom House Respondent(s) Cochin – 682 009 Kerala Appearance: Mr. M. Kunhammed, Chairman For the Appellant Mr. Madhupsharan, Assistant For the Respondent Commissioner (AR)

¶9

Date of Hearing: 02/08/2018 Date of Decision: 02/08/2018

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. P DINESHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

¶11

Final Order No. 21098 / 2018

¶12

Per : P DINESHA

¶13

Assessee is before this Court being aggrieved by the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Cochin.

¶14

¶15

Appellant had imported capital goods under Bills of Entry No. 183296 dated 04.08.2006 at concessional rate of duty as per Notification No. 97/04 dated 17.09.2004 under EPCG Licence No. 10300000752 dated 11.01.2006 issued by Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Cochin. Total duty foregone in this case as per licence was Rs. 28,29,112/- and the duty foregone as per assessment was Rs. 29,70,250/-. The adjudicating authority was of the view that the appellant had not fulfilled the conditions of Notification No. 97/2004 dated 17.09.2004 since the importer was required to produce the Installation Certificate dated 06.02.2007 issued by the Central Excise Assistant Commissioner but they failed to produce evidence of fulfillment of export obligation in respect of the block of 1^st to 6^th year (50%) which ended on 10.01.2012 and the block of 7^th & 8^th year (50%) which ended on 10.01.2014. Hence, it appeared that the importer was liable to pay duty of Rs. 29,70,250.00 leviable on the goods imported but for the exemption contained in the Notification, together with applicable interest from the date of clearance of the goods, as per the conditions of the Notification and the bond executed by them. A personal hearing was granted and not being satisfied by the explanation, the adjudicating authority vide a order dated 13.01.2016 confirmed the interest of Rs. 15,55,109/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand One Hundred and Nine only). The appellant did not meet with success in its appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Cochin.

¶16

Heard Mr. M. Kunhammed, authorized representative for the assessee and Mr. Madhupsharan, learned DR for the Revenue.

¶17

¶18

From the records made available, I find that though the adjudicating authority has recorded the pleadings of the appellant that it was a Central Government sponsored project with some purposes; though substantially they had paid the duty foregone; that as per the communication from Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Office of the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade) the duty saved was only Rs. 26,76,077.82 (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand and Seventy Seven only) as against Rs. 29,70,250/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Seventy Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty only) etc., but there is no findings given by either the adjudicating authority or the appellate authority on these specific pleadings.

¶19

I therefore, deem it proper in the interest of justice to remand the matter back to the file of adjudicating authority who pass a speaking order afresh after considering all such legal pleas of the appellant. It goes without saying that the Adjudicating Authority shall afford reasonable opportunities to the appellant and after considering the documents as also the case-law, if any, relied upon by the appellant and then pass a fresh order. The case is therefore allowed for statistical purposes.

¶20

(Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in Open Court on 02/08/2018 )

¶21

(P. DINESHA)

¶22

JUDICIAL MEMBER

¶23

iss...

Subicsha Coconut Producers Company Ltd. v. Cochin-cus

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subicsha Coconut Producers Company Ltd. v. Cochin-cus

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Petronet Lng Limited vs Ahmedabad

Naitik Enterprise vs Ahmedabad

Shabnam Synthetics vs Surat-ii

Chandanlal Champalal And Co. vs Commissioner Of Customs, Bangalore

Divis Laboratories Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs(Import)-Mumbai Import-I

Vardhman Sales Agency vs Noida

Ramesh And Company vs Noida

Gunwantral S Joshi vs Chennai (Port Export)