2015 (5) TMI 834 - HC - Customs

Customs Commissioner's Reversal Deemed Abuse of Power & Lacking Jurisdiction

M/s RY Midas Metacast Pvt Ltd & 1 Versus Union of India & 3

The High Court held that the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) erred in reversing previous orders without new substantial evidence, deeming it an abuse of ... Import of aluminum waste and scrap to manufacture of circles and tubes - Exemption of customs duty - Notification No.12/2012 – Held that:- So far as the circle is concerned, this objection was raised by the Revenue in the very first assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority dated 9.3.2011 which was not accepted by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad by judgment dated 2.9.2011 and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was pleased to allow the appeal of the petitioners. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there was no new facts which came into light on the basis of which the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad jumped to the conclusion that new facts are emerged and the petitioner is manufacturing circles. When there were already six orders – as pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner -, in favour of petitioner passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad as well as by the Assessing Officer, in such situation the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad was not justified in holding that new fact has come into existence over-looking the finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad in its earlier judgment dated 2.9.2011. Therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad cannot be maintained. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Challenge to impugned order dated 25.3.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) regarding exemption of customs duty for imported raw materials under Notification No.12/2012 - Central Excise.Analysis:The writ petition challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dated 25.3.2015. The petitioner, an importer of aluminum waste and scrap, claimed exemption of customs duty for raw materials imported under Notification No.12/2012 - Central Excise. The dispute arose from the petitioner's manufacturing process, where the executing authority held that the petitioner was liable to pay customs duty as they were manufacturing goods other than plates and sheets. However, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) allowed exemptions to the petitioner after finding that the petitioner was indeed manufacturing aluminum sheets and utensils from circles. This decision was based on evidence provided by the petitioner regarding the manufacturing process. Subsequent disputes arose regarding additional facts noticed by the Assessing Authority, leading to conflicting judgments by different authorities.The Assessing Authority granted exemption to the petitioner under Notification No.12/2012, despite noting additional facts, which led to an appeal by the Department. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) allowed the Department's appeal, stating that the petitioner was not entitled to the exemption due to new facts emerging about the manufacturing of aluminum circles under the compound levy scheme. However, the High Court found that the objection regarding the circles had been raised earlier and rejected by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in a previous judgment. The High Court held that the Commissioner was not justified in reversing previous orders without new substantial evidence.The High Court emphasized that the Commissioner's decision was an abuse of power, lacked judicial propriety, and amounted to an order passed without jurisdiction. Despite the statutory remedy of filing an appeal, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dated 25.3.2015. The Court highlighted that the Commissioner should have remanded the matter for further consideration if new facts had indeed emerged, rather than deciding the matter without substantial examination. The parties were directed to bear their own costs in the case.