M/s. Himson Textiles Enginr. Indust. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Customs, Mumbai
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 5469 of 1997
Petitioner: M/s. Himson Textiles Enginr. Indust. Ltd.
Respondent: Commr. of Customs, Mumbai
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 5469 of 1997
Judges: S.P. BHARUCHA, N. SANTOSH HEGDE & Ruma PAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 01, 2000
Head Note:
CUSTOMS LAW
Customs Act, 1962
Customs duty – Valuation of imported goods – Appellate Tribunal applying the ratio of the decision in Essar Gujarat Case (88 ELT 609) – Court finding that the ratio of the said decision not applicable to the facts of the case – Matter therefore restored to the file of the Tribunal for fresh consideration with due attention to be paid to the decision of Supreme Court in Mahindra & Mahindra’s case (JT 1995 (9) SC 635) and the decision of Tribunal in Maruti Udyog’s case (28 ELT 390).
Customs Act, 1962
Customs duty – Valuation of imported goods – Appellate Tribunal applying the ratio of the decision in Essar Gujarat Case (88 ELT 609) – Court finding that the ratio of the said decision not applicable to the facts of the case – Matter therefore restored to the file of the Tribunal for fresh consideration with due attention to be paid to the decision of Supreme Court in Mahindra & Mahindra’s case (JT 1995 (9) SC 635) and the decision of Tribunal in Maruti Udyog’s case (28 ELT 390).
Cases Reffered:
1. Collector of Customs (Prev.), Ahmedabad v. Essar Gujarat Ltd. (88 ELT 609).
2. Union of India v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. JT 1995 (9) SC 635
2. Union of India v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. JT 1995 (9) SC 635
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. In this order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal which is under appeal, the Tribunal has applied the ratio of the decision of this Court in Collector of Customs (Prev.), Ahmedabad v. Essar Gujarat Ltd. (88 ELT 609). It has found that the Commissioner (Appeals) was in error in following the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. JT 1995 (9) SC 635 = (76 ELT 481).
2. It is, fairly, not disputed that the judgment in the case of Essar Gujarat has no application to the facts of this matter. It is, therefore, in our view, appropriate to set aside the judgment and order under appeal and to restore to the file of the Tribunal the appeal before it (Appeal No.C/415-V/95-Bom.) for being heard and decided afresh. Due attention shall be paid to the facts of the case, to the judgment in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra and, indeed, to the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. (28 ELT 390) which was approved by the order of this Court on 26 April, 1989.
3. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
1. In this order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal which is under appeal, the Tribunal has applied the ratio of the decision of this Court in Collector of Customs (Prev.), Ahmedabad v. Essar Gujarat Ltd. (88 ELT 609). It has found that the Commissioner (Appeals) was in error in following the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. JT 1995 (9) SC 635 = (76 ELT 481).
2. It is, fairly, not disputed that the judgment in the case of Essar Gujarat has no application to the facts of this matter. It is, therefore, in our view, appropriate to set aside the judgment and order under appeal and to restore to the file of the Tribunal the appeal before it (Appeal No.C/415-V/95-Bom.) for being heard and decided afresh. Due attention shall be paid to the facts of the case, to the judgment in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra and, indeed, to the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. (28 ELT 390) which was approved by the order of this Court on 26 April, 1989.
3. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
