SHYAM TRADERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (ACC)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides. Normally in such cases we have been remanding the appeals for verification as to whether the manufacturer of the exported product has availed Modvat credit and whether the same has been reversed and for re -adjudication on that basis. However, the learned advocate for the appellants strongly pleads that in view of the recent decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Hico Enterprises v. C.C, Mumbai - , the transferee is not liable to pay any duty even if the Modvat credit has been availed by the original licence holder/manufacturer.

(2.) THE learned D.R. pleads equally strongly that Hico (supra) has been rendered per incuriam without considering contrary decisions of Hon'ble Orissa High Court in Raj Exports v. NALCO - affirmed by the Apex Court - and of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Rico Gems Corporation v. C.C.I. and E. - though these were cited before the Larger Bench that heard Hico (supra) nearly 10 months before rendering the decision.

(3.) CONSIDERING arguments from both sides, we consider it expedient to waive the requirement of pre -deposit in this case and direct the registry to list the appeal for final hearing before any independent Bench not consisting of any of the Hon'ble Members of the Bench that heard Hico (supra) so as to avoid any embarrassment to the Hon'ble members in view of the pleadings made. T. Anjaneyulu, Member (J)