By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, FEB 18, 2017: THIS is a Revenue appeal filed in the year 2006 against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai.

Revenue is aggrieved by the fact that the adjudicating authority has not imposed any redemption fine on the goods which are confiscated. Also, the value of the imported goods is not enhanced by 15%, although the adjudicating authority has enhanced the value by 2.677%.

The respondent submitted that against the very same order-in-original, Revenue as well as respondent had sought permission of Committee on Disputes for filing an appeal before the Tribunal. And, in the meeting held on 21.8.2007, the Committee had denied permission to the Revenue as well as the respondent for filing an appeal against the order-in-original. A copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Committee on Disputes is also produced before the CESTAT.

After considering the submissions, the Bench inter alia observed -

"… This appeal was filed (by Revenue) on 22.11.2006. During the relevant period, it was mandatory for the department to seek permission from the Committee on Disputes to file an appeal before the higher judicial forum. We find that in the said minutes of the COD meeting held on 21.8.2007, the COD heard the departmental representative represented by Shri Rajeev Tandon, Commissioner, CBEC and Shri G.M. Rajan, DGM (Legal), the respondent herein. The COD very clearly recorded that there are no legal issues involved in the dispute in the case of impugned order and the Committee held that it was not desirable for the Revenue authorities as well as Mazagon Docks Ltd. to litigate the matter in a court of law and gave direction to the department not to impose any further penalty on MDL or insist on confiscation of the goods. On the face of such clear direction of the Committee on Disputes, we find that the appeal filed by the Revenue needs to be rejected and we do so."

The Revenue appeal was rejected.

(See 2017-TIOL-500-CESTAT-MUM)