Per : Mr. M.V. Ravindran; This appeal is directed against the order in appeal No.Commr.(A)/251 & 252/VDR-I/2011, dt.30.06.11.
2. The facts of the case, in brief are that the appellant is registered under Customs Act, 1962 and is allowed mixed storage of the imported as well as domestically procured crude oil. 10,869 MT and 20,853 MT of interface of Bombay High crude oil, was allowed to be cleared without payment of customs duty vide Supdt. (Tech), Div. IVs letters F.No.V.(Misc.)(30)44/IOC/2003-04 dt.19.08.03 and Assistant Commissioner, Div. IVs letter F. No.V.(Misc.)(30)44/IOC/04-05 Part-I dt.07.03.05 respectively. However, on finalization of the B/E No.F-23 F-23/05-07-03 and B/E No.F-50/26-11-04, the lower authority also finalised the assessment and directed the appellant to pay up the differential duty of Rs.1,06,47,189/- and 3,36,52,248/- respectively against the quantity of interface of Bombay crude oil, which was allowed to be cleared without payment of duty as mentioned above.
3. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders and the assessments, appellant preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority reasoning various points and grounds on which they have challenged the order in original. The first appellate authority upheld the order of the lower authorities and disposed of the appeals filed by the appellant. Hence this appeal.
4. Ld. counsel would submit that the first appellate authority has disposed of the appeal only on the ground that the appellant could not produce any evidence to prove that the issue raised by the department was illegal otherwise. He brought to our notice various statements and the permissions issued by the lower authorities for movement of interface of Bombay High crude without payment of duty.
5. It is his submission that the matter may be remanded back for reconsideration to the adjudicating authority in light of the evidences showed by him.
6. Ld. Additional Commissioner (A.R.) also makes a plea that the issue needs reconsideration by the adjudicating authority as the permissions as granted by the lower authorities were not considered by them.
7. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we find that the issue involved in this case is regarding the demand of duty on the ground that crude oil from the Bombay High was allowed to be cleared without payment of duty but actually the appellant had not been able to produce the correct reconciliation to show that they had cleared crude oil of interface from Bombay High. Both the lower authorities have finalised the bills of entries filed by the appellant and confirmed the differential customs duty in respect of the quantities which the appellant claims are eligible for clearance of without payment of duty as they are from interface of Bombay High. On mere perusal of statements produced by the ld. counsel, we find that there seems to be some merits in their arguments. This statement, needs to be verified by the adjudicating authority and hence without going into the merits of the said statements as produced by the ld. counsel, we find that the issue is to be decided on the factual matrix by the adjudicating authority after considering all the evidences that may be produced by the appellant before him at the time of hearing in denovo proceedings.
8. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, we set aside the impugned orders, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and keeping all the issues open, remit the matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh after following the principles of natural justice.
9. The appeal is allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority. (Operative Portion Pronounced in the Court) (B.S.V. Murthy) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) .JK
Comments