Remanded

Shri Mintu Pan v. Shillong(preventive)

CESTAT12 Feb 2024C/77466/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Customs Appellate Tribunal held that the adjudicating authority passed the order before providing relied upon documents to the appellant. The Tribunal remanded the case for fresh consideration of preliminary objections regarding the delay in receiving the notice and the non-production of documents within the ordered time limit.

What did the court decide?

The matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to consider preliminary objections, examine documents, and pass appropriate orders within four months.

Shri Mintu Pan vs Shillong(preventive) — CESTAT (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONAL BENCH : KOLKATA

¶2

REGIONAL BENCH – COURT NO. 1

¶3

Customs Appeal No. 77466 of 2019

¶4

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 01/CUS(A)/GHY/2019 dated 31.01.2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), C.G.S.T., Central Excise & Customs, 5^th Floor, Custom House, Nilamoni Phukan Path, Christian Basti, Guwahati – 781 005)

¶5

Shri Mintu Pan : Appellant

¶6

Vill.Kashiganja, P.O. Khirpai, Dist. Paschim Medinipur, West Bengal, PIN – 721 232

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) 110, Mahatma Gandhi Road, NER, Shillong – 793 001, Meghalaya

¶9

: Respondent

¶10

APPEARANCE:

¶11

Smt. Atika Simran Ahmed, Advocate for the Appellant

¶12

Shri S. Chatterjee, Authorized Representative for the Respondent

¶13

CORAM:

¶14

HON’BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

¶15

FINAL ORDER NO. 75189 / 2024

¶16

DATE OF HEARING / DECISION: 12.02.2024

¶17

Order :

¶18

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the confiscation of 5 gold biscuits weighting 830 grams seized from the possession of Shri Mintu Pan.

¶19

The adjudicating authority has issued the Orderin-Original dated 07/08.08.2018 wherein he ordered absolute confiscation of the 5 gold biscuits of foreign origin and imposed penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- on the

¶20

¶21

Appeal No.: ST/77466/2019-SM

¶22

appellant and the same were confirmed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order.

¶23

During the time of personal hearing, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that they have requested for producing the relied upon documents vide their letters dated 02.07.2018 and 19.07.2018, however, the relied upon documents have not been handed over to them till the Order-inOriginal dated 07.08.2018 was passed; later, the relied upon documents have been handed over to them on 14.01.2019, which is noted by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) as 11.01.2019.

¶24

3.1 Thus, I observe that the adjudicating authority has passed the decision before handing over the relied upon documents to the appellant.

¶25

The appellant also submits that the Show Cause Notice dated 12.03.2018 was received by them only on 17.03.2018, which is beyond the period of six months from the date of seizure of the goods on 15.09.2017. However, the appellant has not produced any documentary evidence to substantiate their claim that the Show Cause Notice was received on 17.03.2018.

¶26

In the interests of justice, I am of the opinion that these preliminary objections raised by the appellant have to be examined by the adjudicating authority. Also, since the Order-in-Original was passed before formally handing over the relied upon documents to the appellant, it is necessary to remand the case back to the adjudicating authority to consider all the objections raised by the appellant and pass appropriate orders after perusing all the relevant documents.

¶27

¶28

Appeal No.: ST/77466/2019-SM

¶29

In view of the above, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to consider all the preliminary objections raised by the appellant and peruse all the documents relevant for taking a decision and then pass appropriate orders within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶30

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority.

¶31

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(K. ANPAZHAKAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

¶34

Sdd

Shri Mintu Pan v. Shillong(preventive)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Mintu Pan v. Shillong(preventive)

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

Abhishek Soni vs Lucknow Prev

Global Agencies vs Cochin-cus

Century Pulp & Paper vs Kolkata(port)

M B Chemical vs Kolkata(port)

Apple Sponge & Power Lilmited vs Commisioner ,Central Excise and Service Tax-Pune-Ii

Apple Sponge & Power Lilmited vs Commisioner ,Central Excise and Service Tax-Pune-Ii

Kolkata(prev) vs B B Enterprise

Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. vs -Bhubaneswar(Preventive)