2015 (3) TMI 421 - AT - Customs

CESTAT Chennai: Commissioner (Appeals) Authority Upheld, Impugned Order Set Aside, Appeals Dismissed

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai upheld the power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand matters, citing broad authority to confirm, modify, or ... Demand of differential duty - Imposition of interest and penalty - Undervaluation of goods - Commissioner remanded matter back in respect for partial appellants - Power of Commissioner to remand the matter back - Held that:- No reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) against which appeals filed by the Revenue. As the Commissioner (Appeals) by the earlier Orders-in-Appeal set aside the Adjudication order and, therefore, the impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) against Shri Chaman Lal Bhambri cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned Order-in-Appeal against which the appeal filed by Shri Chaman Lal Bhambri is liable to be set aside and remanded to be to the Adjudicating authority. - Following decision of Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-II Vs Honda Seil Power Products Ltd. reported in [2013 (3) TMI 303 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] - Decided in favour of appellants. Issues:Appeal against Adjudication Order - Remand power of Commissioner (Appeals) - Differential duty on import of Second-Hand Off-set Printing Machine - Penalties imposed on co-conspirators - Validity of remand order by Commissioner (Appeals).Analysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai involved multiple issues arising from three separate appeals filed against impugned orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding a common Adjudication Order. The appeals pertained to the import of a Second-Hand Off-set Printing Machine by a company, which led to the rejection of declared value, imposition of differential duty, interest, and penalties on the company and co-conspirators. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Adjudication order for the company and one co-conspirator, remanding the matter for a fresh hearing. However, in the case of another co-conspirator, the appeal was rejected, leading to the present appeal.Regarding the power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the matter, the Tribunal referred to various decisions by higher courts and held that the Appellate Authority has the power to pass orders as deemed fit, including confirming, modifying, or annulling the decision appealed against. Citing specific cases like Union of India Vs Umesh Dhaimode, the Tribunal emphasized the broad powers of the Appellate Authority in such matters.The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the cases where the Adjudication order was set aside. Consequently, the impugned order against one of the co-conspirators was deemed unsustainable, leading to a decision to set it aside and remand it to the Adjudicating authority for further proceedings. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, while the appeal filed by the co-conspirator was allowed by way of remand.In conclusion, the Tribunal directed the Adjudicating authority to expedite the resolution of these matters, considering the prolonged duration since the imports in question occurred in 2003. The stay application filed by one of the co-conspirators was also disposed of, emphasizing the need for timely resolution in line with the directions given by the Commissioner (Appeals) in related cases.