TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 969
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted the appellant's appeal and upheld the Order in Original No. 49 of 2014 dated 24.06.2014. 2. The relevant facts, as gleaned from the appeal records, are that the appellant is a Public Ltd. Company engaged in the manufacture of newsprint and writing papers. The dispute in the present case pertains to the import of 67,204 MT of Non-Coking Coal vide bill of entry no.5876900 dated 01.02.2012. The appellant claimed concessional rate of BCD @ 2% ad valorem under Notification No.46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011. Proviso to first paragraph of the said notification stipulates that the importer has to prove to the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, that the goods in respect ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the department was of the view that the imported cargo is rightly classifiable as bituminous coal in the light of the sub-heading note 2 of Chapter 27, referred above. 3. The Department has stated that at the time of provisional assessment, the appellant had claimed the concessional rate of duty benefit under Notification no. 46/2011 - Cus. ibid which was subject to production of Certificate of Origin, by producing photostat copies of original Certificate of Origin (3 Nos.) and executing the PD bond, undertaking to produce all original documents relating to the transaction, including the original Certificate of Origin. However, finding that the documents produced by the appellant for finalisation vide their letter dated 16.07.2012 again....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... agreement as mentioned in the notification is clear about the procedure to be followed in cases of loss of Certificate of Origin and the same can not be bypassed by following another procedure which is not approved by the agreement. The adjudicating authority relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Allahabad Vs. Ginni Filaments Ltd., 2005 (181) ELT 145, for guidance with regard to interpretation of notification. The Adjudicating Authority also rejected the attested photo copies of the Certificate of Origin produced finding that they are not in compliance of Rule 10 of the above mentioned Annexure III of Notification No.189/2009-Cus (NT) dated 31.12.2009. 6. The Adjudicating Authority vide the Order in Ori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....authority that the original certificates submitted was misplaced by the department and therefore the benefit of duty concession should not be denied for the department's lapse. It is submitted that the appellant had also contended that the ITPC letter confirming the authenticity of the certificate should suffice and that they had cited case laws supporting the use of certified copies when the originals are lost. It is also submitted that the Appellant had claimed that the education cess and higher education cess are exempted as per the relevant central excise notifications (28 & 29 of 2010). Ld. Consultant submits that although the Learned Adjudicating Authority has reclassified the goods as bituminous coal, the appellant had specifically r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he rival submissions and perused the appeal records. We note that the categorical prayer made at the Bar by the Ld. Consultant is that the matter be remitted back to the first appellate authority as they would like a decision on all the contentions that they had raised. Considering the submissions of the Ld. Consultant that their specific contentions have not been addressed by the First Appellate Authority despite the appellant urging findings on the same, we are of the firm opinion that it will serve the ends of justice if all issues are kept open and the matter is remitted back to the Jurisdictional Commissioner Appeals to take a decision afresh. 11. In the light of our discussions supra, we set aside the impugned Order in Appeal and r....