COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs. INDORAMA SYNTHETICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NONE appeared for the respondents. Heard Shri R. Pardeshi, learned D.R. for the department. This appeal has been filed in the Tribunal on 23 -6 -1999 in pursuance of the Review order dtd. 20 -3 -1999 passed by the Board against the impugned order dtd. 7 -4 -1998. However, we find that the appeal against the same very impugned order filed by the respondents on 3 -7 -1998 was earlier heard and rejected by Bench Order dtd. 30 -4 -2003. On the day of hearing on 25 -4 -2003, the respondents were not present when their appeal was heard by the Bench and the learned D.R. did not bring it to the notice of the Bench that an appeal filed by the department against the impugned order is pending and that the same should be heard together with the appeal filed by the respondents.

(2.) THIS is a case involving duty of Rs. 1,05,75,932/ -. The impugned goods valued at Rs. 6,77,31,626/ - were confiscated by the Adjudicating Commissioner. While confirming the duty and confiscating the goods, he has imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 1 Lakh and penalty of Rs. 50,000/ -. The appeal by the respondent was against such fine and penalty. The appeal by the department is for enhancement in the penalty amount considering the value of goods and duty involved.

(3.) IN view of the fact that the respondent's appeal was decided while the department's appeal was pending, following the decision of the Larger Bench in the case C.C.E., Chandigarh v. Standard Tapulin Industries, we recall the earlier order of the Tribunal dtd. 30 -4 -2003 and since both sides are aggrieved by the quantum of fine and/or penalty determined, we set aside the impugned order in so far as it relates to determination of fine and penalty and remand the matter to the Adjudicating Commissioner for fresh determination. He shall give an adequate opportunity of hearing to both sides before passing a fresh speaking order. Both the appeals are thus allowed by way of remand.