TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 163
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....DER Per Mr. Ajayan T. V. The appellants herein are M/s. Givaduan India Pvt Ltd. formerly known as (Vinoram Pvt. Ltd.) and its Ex-Director Shri Mohan Swarna. These appeals, being related, are hence taken up for hearing together and are disposed off by this common order. 2. The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned order in appeal C.Cus.No.870/2013, dated 27.06.2013 (OIA) whereby the Appellate Authority has upheld the Order in Original No.18865/2013, dated 31.03.2012 (OIO). 3. Briefly, the facts are that pursuant to an investigation conducted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant company requiring them, inter-alia, to Show Cause as to why the 26 Mixtures of Odoriferous (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....toms Act, 1962. The appellant Mr. Mohan Suvarna was also called upon to show cause why penalty under Section 112(a) should not be imposed on him. 4. Pursuant to the replies filed by the appellants and after following due process of law, the Adjudicating Authority passed the Order in Original No.18865/2013, dated 31.03.2012 whereby he confirmed the proposals for reclassification, denial of benefit of exemption notifications, the consequent differential duty demands, ordered confiscation of the goods with option to redeem them on payment of redemption fines and also imposed penalties on the importer appellant under Section 114 A and a penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act on the appellant Shri Mohan Swarna as detailed in the afo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant are further processed/manufactured before they are cleared to the end customers. It is his submission that these contentions were raised in their appeal preferred before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority too had recorded that they had taken the aforesaid stand. He would submit that even before the Appellate Authority he had requested that the matter may be sent back to the original authority for a fresh consideration in the light of the submissions. He submits that both the Appellate Authority as well as the Original Adjudicating Authority have mechanically followed the decision of the Bangalore bench reported in 2010 (261) E.L.T. 975 (Tri.-Bang) without appreciating the fact that in the case decided by the Bang....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n. We find that the Commissioner therefore has to examine and categorically find if these compounds are also of a kind used for the manufacture of beverages. In the circumstances, while upholding the decision that the beverage flavours under import used for the manufacture of beverages are not eligible for the exemption, we remand the dispute relating to the remaining flavour compounds to the Commissioner for a fresh decision. As the demand of duty is mostly sustained, penalty ordered under Section 114A of the Act is also sustained to the extent the demand is sustained. Other liabilities have to be redetermined in view of the revised duty liability of GIPL in case found." 10. Thus, even as per the above decision of the Bangalore Bench of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ects are correct or not. Such an examination would be better left to the adjudicating authority who is equipped to look into the documents, records, other evidences and any other relevant aspect. This verification of the documents and evidences submitted has to be done by the adjudicating authority before recording a finding of fact on the dispute, and only thereafter would the stage of determining the entitlement to the benefit of notification and/or applying judicial precedents to the matter arise. 13. Given the fact that both parties are ad idem that the matter requires examination and reconsideration by the Original authority afresh, we are of the view that the interest of justice will be served if the matter is remitted back for dec....