TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 843
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... MTs were found. 3. On enquiry, partner of the appellant firm has stated that the goods were part of their earlier consignment of 100 MTs of tin coils, when they have imported the same in consignment of total 167 MTs of secondary/defective TFS coils vide Bill of Entry No. 011630, dated 27-5-2002, Bill of Entry No. 011612, dated 27-5-2002 and Bill of Entry No. 38969, dated 16-4-2002. The said goods weighing 68.400 MTs of tin sheets/coils were seized for further action under Customs Act, 1962. 4. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ministry of Finance, there-after, issued a show cause notice dated 17-9-2002 asking the appellant to show cause as to why the declared value for the past and live consignments should not be rejected and refixed as US$ 465/MTs and interest under Section 20AB of Customs Act, should not be demanded on duty valuation of past clearance and differential duty amount already deposited by the importer should not be appropriated and the tin coils of width above 600 mm seized from the godown as well as the live consignment should not be confiscated under Section 111(d), (l) & (m) of the Customs Act and the defective coils used for concealing the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the conduct of appellant and the confiscable nature of goods to record the sweeping findings to reject their appeal by overlooking the various statutory provisions relating to determine the correct value of the goods or the confiscability of the goods and the sustainability of the huge penalty on them under the provisions of the Customs Act and the rules made thereunder? (2) Whether the Tribunal was correct in not even taking note of the earlier order passed by it remanding the case back to the original adjudicating authority with a specific direction to supply the copies of contemporaneous Bills of Entry based on which, the value is proposed to be redetermined by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited in the said order and to reject their appeal without taking judicial notice of the fact that the original adjudicating authority had totally omitted to follow the directions given by it and failed to comply with their directions? (3) Whether the Tribunal was correct in overlooking the contention raised in show cause notice concerning the redetermination of the value of the imported goods only to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ability of the huge penalty on the appellant and in that view of the said omissions, the impugned order is not legally sustainable. (c) The Tribunal had committed gross injustice in passing the impugned order without taking cognizance of its earlier order, which had remanded the case back to the original adjudicating authority with a specific direction to supply the copies of contemporaneous Bills of Entry, in support of the redetermination of the value, which the lower adjudicating authority had miserably failed to comply with thereby, committing gross judicial indiscipline, which the Tribunal had not taken note of before passing the impugned order. (d) The Tribunal also failed to see that while the proposal made in the show cause notice for the redetermination of value was by invoking Rule 6 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, the action of the lower adjudicating authority in relying upon certain contemporaneous imports, (the copies of which were not given to the appellant even after the directions issued by the Tribunal in its previous order of remand) failed to establish that the imports made by the appellant at the rele....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Bills of Entry relied upon. As the duty, penalty, fine, interest, etc., depend on the assessable value to be determined, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner for adjudicating the allegations afresh in the light of our various observations above. Of course, the appellants will be given adequate opportunity of being heard before such adjudication." 14. It is the case of the appellant that after remand, de novo enquiry was conducted and during such enquiry, the appellant contended that immediately after registering the offence on 32 MTs, which were not physically found and verified by the officers during Mahazar time and was also not seized, Rs. 2,28,360/- was collected as bank guarantee for provisional release. Even though, those 32 MTs were not provisionally released. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 4,56,720/- was collected by the department, without giving any valid reasons. That apart, it could be seen from the order-in-original dated 16-9-2003, wherein which, the department had given an option to the appellant to redeem the above-mentioned goods on payment of redemption fine. Learned Counsel for the appellant would further submit that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in, were cryptic and non-speaking, and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for taking a fresh decision, by a speaking order, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to both the parties. (iii) In Commr. of Central Excise, Bangalore-II v. Fitwel Tools & Forgings (P) Ltd., reported in 2010 (256) E.L.T. 212 (Kar.), a Hon'ble Division Bench of Karnataka High Court, at Paragraph 5, held as follows : "After careful perusal of the order impugned, it is manifest on the face of the order that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in passing the order impugned without assigning any valid reasons and without any discussion, by merely following the order passed in similar matters, it has proceeded to pass the impugned order, allowing the appeal filed by the respondent. Hence, we are of the opinion that the impugned order is cryptic in nature and such a non-speaking order cannot be sustained." 16. It is clear that the order of Tribunal is certainly a non-speaking order and the Tribunal failed to consider the grounds raised by the appellant. Merely reproduction of comments from the show....