Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai vs M/S. B.S. Shoes Pvt. Ltd on 29 January, 2018
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI Appeal No. C/111/2010 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal C. Cus. No. 1379/2009 dated 12.11.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai) Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Appellant (Airport & Cargo) Vs. M/s. B.S. Shoes Pvt. Ltd. Respondent
Shri R. Subramanian, AC (AR) for the Appellant
None for the Respondent
Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing / Decision: 29.01.2018
Final Order No. 40227 / 2018
Per B. Ravichandran,
Revenue is in appeal against order dated 12.11.2009 of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai. In the said order, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal by the Revenue against the original order dated 17.9.2007 sanctioning certain refund to the respondent. The first appellate authority held taking note that there was no grounds for filing appeal and the said grounds were prepared only by the officer who preferred the appeal and does not appear to have been approved by the reviewing authority. As such, holding that the appeal before him was filed without application of mind in a mechanical manner, he dismissed the appeal by the Revenue.
2. We have heard ld. AR who submitted that the file was processed and put up with detail reasons to the Commissioner pointing out the need for filing the appeal against the original order. Based on such analysis, the appeal was filed. Hence the Commissioner (Appeals) should have passed order on merit.
3. None appeared on behalf of the respondent.
4. We have perused the appeal records.
5. It is clear even before us the detailed grounds were not filed. The Revenue contended that the grounds of appeal were analyzed in the note sheet which got the approval of the Commissioner and as such there is no infirmity in the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Even that being the case, neither before the Commissioner (Appeals) nor before us such note sheet containing the details as approved by the Commissioner has been placed. We are in agreement with the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the manner of filing appeal by the Revenue. We also consider the pleas submitted by the ld. AR to the effect that the original authority failed to verify all the relevant documents and the question of unjust enrichment. We note that the original authority had taken note of the submission made by the Chartered Accountant on behalf of claimant of the refund and also cost sheet and various documentary materials have been examined. We also note that the refund has been passed in line with the final order dated 4.12.2006 of this Tribunal.
6. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present appeal filed by Revenue for which the same is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (B. RAVICHANDRAN) (SULEKHA BEEVI C.S.) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) Rex 2