Appeal filed by Revenue against Tribunal order allowing concessional CVD. Court dismissed appeal based on Central Board instructions due to low tax effect, leaving substantial question of law open.
Appeal dismissed; liberty granted to seek restoration if case falls outside Central Board instructions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.M.A(MD).No.394 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.11.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.THARANI C.M.A(MD).No.394 of 2019 and C.M.P(MD).No.4768 of 2019
The Commissioner of Customs Custom House, New Harbour Estate, Tuticorin-628 004.
Vs.
M/s VV Mineral, 17-C, Keeraikaranthattu, Tisaiyanvilai, Tirunelveli 627 657. ... Respondent/Appellant
Prayer : Appeal is filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, to consider the above appeal and set aside the impugned order of the CESTAT in common final order No.40271-40292/2018 dated 31.01.2018.
For Appellant : Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan For Respondent : Mr.A.K.Jayaraj
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J .)
We have heard Mr.B.Vijaykarthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for appellant and Mr.A.K.Jayaraj, learned counsel appearing for respondent.
2.The appeal by the Revenue is directed against the common order passed by the Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai, (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for the sake of brevity), dated 31.01.2018. The appeal has been filed raising the following substantial question of law:
'Whether the Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) is correct in allowing the benefit of concessional rate of counter Veiling Duty (CVD) on the imports wherein the importers have failed to fulfil the conditions stipulated in the Notification No.4/2006-CE as amended and also when such imports by the importers are in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
1/2
C.M.A(MD).No.394 of 2019
contrary to the conditions stipulated in the Notification No.4/2006-CE as amended?'
// True Copy //
Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
rmk
+1 CC to M/s.B.VIJAY KARTHIKEYAN, Advocate ( SR-100718[F] dated 22/11/2019 )
+1 CC to M/s.AK. JAYARAJ, Advocate ( SR-101567[F] dated 26/11/2019 )
C.M.A(MD).No.394 of 2019 22.11.2019
ma(CO) TR(19.12.2019)2P 3C
2/2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in allowing concessional counter veiling duty when conditions were not fulfilled.
Whether the appeal can be adjudicated due to Central Board of Excise and Customs instructions.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of Customs Custom House, New Harbour Estate, Tuticorin
M/s VV Mineral
T.S.SIVAGNANAM
R.THARANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
