By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, AUG 30, 2017: THIS is a Revenue appeal.

The respondent, Organizing Committee for CWG, 2010 imported timing equipments in connection with Common Wealth Games, 2010. They claimed the exemption under Notification 13/2010-CUS dated 09/02/2010.

The Original Authority held that respondent was not eligible for the said concession and confirmed a demand of Rs. 13,99,593/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

On appeal, the Commissioner (A), instead of deciding the correctness of the duty demand, proceeded entirely on a different direction and ordered an additional enquiry against CHA. He did not give a categorical finding regarding the correctness or otherwise of the original order, on duty demand or on penalty.

Revenue is, therefore, in appeal before the CESTAT.

The Bench observed that the impugned order was not in conformity with the provisions of Section 128A of Customs Act, 1962, which stipulated the role of the Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding appeals filed before him.

It was further noted -

++ Admittedly, the impugned order did not address the issues raised by the respondent in his appeal against the original order, though reference is made to certain possible mistake on the part of CHA while dealing with import/ export of the consignment.

++ The Commissioner (Appeals) misdirected himself in the final order portion by remanding the case for causing an additional enquiry against the CHA instead of giving a clear ruling on the correctness or otherwise of duty demand.

In fine, the impugned order was set aside and the Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to decide the appeal of the respondent regarding the correctness of the order passed by the Original Authority.

(See 2017-TIOL-3148-CESTAT-DEL)