2024 (1) TMI 1089 - AT - Customs

Commissioner Appeals remand order set aside for violating Section 128A(3)(b) customs valuation cross objection ignored

CESTAT Chennai set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) remand order for violating statutory provisions under Section 128A(3)(b) of the Customs Act. The ... Validity of remand order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) - The appellate authority has accepted the prayer of the revenue to remand the matter back but failed to consider the cross objection filed by the appellant - declared value was accepted as the transaction value for the purposes of assessment of duty under Rule 3(3)(b) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 HELD THAT:- The contentions of the Ld. Additional Commissioner cannot be accepted since, as recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) himself at pages 4 and 5 of the impugned order, the appeal was filed with a prayer to remand, that is to say, the same must have been requested / prayed for during the course of arguments and hence, the word “remand” finds place at two places in the impugned order. In any case, even the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) as to allowing the Department appeal and ‘prayer’, satisfy that what is passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is a remand order, for which the appellant before the said authority had not made out any specific case as to violation of any of the conditions under Section 128A(3)(b) ibid. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is clearly in violation of the statutory provisions, for which reason the impugned order becomes unsustainable in law. He should have, after making such enquiry as may be necessary, passed such order as he thinks just and proper by disposing of the dispute before him. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) may examine and dispose of the matter afresh on merits after hearing the appellant and allowing it to submit a written submission, if it so desires - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is partially allowed. Issues involved:The judgment involves a challenge to an order of remand by the first appellate authority, focusing on the legality of the remand order and the power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand cases back to the adjudicating authority.Challenge to Order of Remand:The appellant-taxpayer challenged the order of remand issued by the first appellate authority, which annulled the Order-in-Original dated 17.03.2014 and allowed the Departmental appeal. The main contention was that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not have the power to remand the case back to the original adjudicating authority, as per statutory provisions. Reference was made to a C.B.E.C. Instruction and Section 128A(3)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, which outlines the circumstances under which a remand can be made. It was argued that the grounds raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) did not specify any violation of the conditions outlined in the Act, but were focused on merits.Legal Analysis and Decision:The Tribunal found that the power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand a matter is limited to specific conditions outlined in the Customs Act. Since the grounds presented did not indicate a violation of these conditions, the Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in passing the remand order. The Tribunal rejected the argument that there was no specific prayer for remand, noting that the order clearly indicated a remand was requested during the arguments. As a result, the Tribunal held that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was in violation of statutory provisions and unsustainable in law. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and partially allowed the appeal, directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to reexamine and dispose of the matter on merits within a specified timeframe.Conclusion:The judgment addressed the challenge to the order of remand issued by the first appellate authority, focusing on the statutory provisions governing the power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand cases. The Tribunal found that the remand order was not in accordance with the specified conditions in the Customs Act, leading to the decision to set aside the order and partially allow the appeal for further examination and disposal of the matter on merits.