KALRA EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The assessee M/s.Kalra Exim Private Limited, Chennai has filed the present appeal, aggrieved by the order dated 06.09.2013 passed by the Single Member of the Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "CESTAT"), whereby the learned Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restored the order of the adjudicating authority and extended the time limit for the assessee to re-export the goods in question till 31.10.2013, if the goods were still available with the Customs Department. The relevant portion of the order of the learned Tribunal, discussing the facts and legal position with respect to the goods in question, which were imported by the assessee viz., red wine, white wine and extra virgin olive oil under the Bill of Entry dated 29.07.2011, is quoted below for ready reference.

(2.) Learned counsel for the assessee Mr.Krishnanandh urged before us that the learned Tribunal has erred in setting aside the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), and not referring and relying upon the provisions of the Food Safety and Safety (Packing and Labelling) Regulations 2011, which was notified only on 05.08.2011. He submitted that under these regulations, the commodity in question viz., wine had certain relaxations and the defects in the labeling, which were pointed out by the adjudicating authority, were not applicable to the import of these commodities viz., red wine and white wine and therefore, merely relying upon the provisions of the Prohibition of Food Adulteration Act, the learned Tribunal ought not to have relied upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of M/s.Arena Impex and hold that there were defects in labelling and justifying the directions of re-export by the adjudicating authority.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr.Srinivas, learned counsel for the Revenue has submitted before us that firstly the Regulations were notified and came into force only on 05.08.2011, whereas the import in question was on a prior date, just a few days earlier ie., on 29.07.2011. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal was right in relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in "The Commissioner of Customs Vs. M/s.Arena Impex in C.M.A.No.1088 of 2012 dated 08.10.2012, in which the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court has quoted in paragraph 8 of the judgment, the order of the Director General of Health Services dated 30.10.2012, and referring to various requirements of the labeling of the products, like ingredients of the commodity, date of manufacture, best before date or export date etc., held that those requirements were not met by the goods in question, imported by the appellant assessee, and therefore, the learned adjudicating authority as well as the learned Tribunal were justified in directing the re-export of the goods in question, whereas the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in giving the relaxation of the applicability of the said requirements on the basis of the relaxation given under the 2011 Regulations with respect to wine and alcoholic beverages under the provisions of the Notification dated 20.5.2011, relied upon by the learned counsel for the Assessee.