Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2015) 10 CESTAT CK 0014

C.C. New Delhi (ICD TKO) vs M/s. Wipro Ltd. Infotech Group

Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 19 October 2015

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Jindal, J · R. K. Singh, Technical Member
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Custom Stay Application No. 51694 Of 2015, Customs Appeal No. 52693 Of 2015

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

23 paragraphs · 424 words
1.

Revenue is in appeal along with application of stay against the impugned order.

2.

Heard both the sides.

3.

After hearing both the sides we find that stay application as well as appeal can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, both are taken up together

for final disposal.

4.

The facts of the case are that the respondent paid duty on assessment of Bill of Entry by themselves without claiming benefit of exemption

notification no.21/2002. Later on, they realized that they are entitled for benefit of said notification filed a refund claim which was rejected by the

Adjudicating Authority on the ground that the respondent has not challenged the assessment of Bill of Entry. Therefore, in the light of the decision in

the case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. Vs. C.C. (Preventive)-2004 (172) E.L.T. 145 (SC a)nd in the case of C.C.E. Vs. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd.- 2006

(6) E.L. T. (SCC) respondent is not entitled for refund claim. The said order was challenged by the respondent before the Ld. Commissioner (A). In

the impugned order, Ld. Commissioner (A) held that there is no dispute that the exemption would be available to the respondent. They have made

proper declaration and it was the incumbent on the Adjudicating Authority to grant such benefit in the face of the product being legible and having

imported having being failed to claim the same. In these circumstances, Ld. Commissioner (A) remanded back the matter to the Adjudicating

Authority for re-consideration.

5.

Said order is challenged before us by the Revenue on the ground that:

a) Ld. Commissioner (A) has no power to remand matters to the Adjudicating Authority.

b) By fiiling refund claim respondent has sought to change classification which cannot be done at this stage.

6.

We have considered the submission made by the Ld. AR that Commissioner (A) has no power to remand the matte back to the Adjudicating

authority. At the same time we also observed that the Adjudicating authority has not commented on the merits of the classification which Revenue

sought to challenge by way of this appeal before us. In these circumstances, exercising our power we remand this matter to the Adjudicating

Authority to consider all the issues raised before us by both the sides. It is pertinent to mention here that Adjudicating authority shall grant reasonable

opportunity to both the sides to defend their case.

7.

With these terms the stay application as well as appeal are disposed of by way of remand.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)