2014 (3) TMI 424

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ficate showing Compliance of Provisions (COP) with the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 as specified under Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and prescribed in the licensing notes. Thus it was noticed that the imported goods were not conforming to the licensing notes of Chapter 87 of Schedule 1 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. As per the adjudication order the provisions contravened were the following: - Vehicle should have been imported from the country of manufacture. It appeared that the goods were of Japanese origin, but imported from United State of America (USA). - Valid Certificate of Compliance of Provisions with the provision of the Central Mo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Commissioner (Appeals) has no power for remanding the matter and he should have adjudicated the case himself. Secondly, it is argued that Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to increase the penalty or fine without issuing show cause notice to the appellant. It is submitted that no such SCN was issued to the appellant. 5. On the merits, the appellant contests that though the goods were of Japanese origin, the goods were assembled in U.S.A. only and the goods were imported from United States. They produced EC Type Approval Certificate/Certificate of COP issued by the manufacturer. This certificate was duly submitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) also. This certificate typically reads as under :- "Sub : Certificate of COP/EU Certificate of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in principle that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand cases to the adjudicating authority, in appropriate cases such remand cannot be considered as bad in law. He cites decision in,- (i) CCE Meerut Vs Honda Seil Power Products Ltd. 2013 (287) ETL 353 (Tri.-Del.) and (ii) Hawkins Cookers Ltd. - CCE Allahabad - 2012 (284) ELT 677 (Tri.-Del.) 8. Arguing that confiscation under section 111 (d) was proper, he relies on the decision of the Tribunal in Shailesh D.Redeej Vs CC(I) NhavaSheva - 2011 (274) ELT 454 (Tri.-Mumbai). The Ld.AR also submitted that the country in which motor cycle was assembled cannot be considered as country of origin. In this case, the goods were manufactured in Japan and brought to USA and assembled there....