ORDER
Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)
1. Heard both sides. It is not understood why such a large number of appeals filed by the Department have been kept pending by the Registry while the appeals against the same impugned orders have been listed and heard earlier on 13.03.2003 by another Bench and an Order has been passed on 22.05.2003 dismissing the appeals filed by the respondents. Shri Anil Balani, learned advocate appearing for some of the appellants fairly states that though the Bench Order dtd. 22.05.2003 refers to only one of the impugned order-in-original dtd. 29.01.1997, it in fact relates to both the impugned orders-in-original. He also fairly concedes that the department’s appeals were filed in time and were very much on Tribunal’s record on the date, the appeals of the respondents were heard and hence, in view of the Large Bench decision in the case of C.C.E. Chandigarh v. Standard Tapulin Industries , the appeals filed by the department and the appeals filed by the respondents were required to be heard together and that the doctrine of merger will not apply in such cases.
2. After hearing both sides and perusal of case records, we find that a large number of consignments have been adjudicated by the adjudicating Commissioner, without directing mutilation of the clothing and garments imported as rags and after imposing only 25% redemption fine and 5% penalty. It is the main grievance of the department that the margin of profit in these cases where as high as 500% after taking the market price to be Rs. 100/Kg whereas the clearance has been allowed adopting a minimum value of Rs. 12.35/Kg. and imposing only 25% fine and 5% penalty. We find merit in the submissions made by the department that the impugned orders passed by the adjudicating Commissioner is not reasonable and the same requires to be set aside, so that the impugned goods can be properly valued and fines and penalties can be redetermined. We also find merit in the submissions made by the learned advocate that the respondents should be given details of margin of profit calculated by the Department during fresh adjudication.
3. After considering all aspects of the case, we are of the view that the appeals filed by both sides were required to be heard together. The Registry should have listed all the appeals filed against the impugned adjudication orders together. This would have obviated the Tribunal passing an order only on the appeals filed by the respondents and recording an observation that there are no appeals by the department. At the time of hearing, the department should have also pointed out the fact that the departmental appeals were indeed filed and the same were pending, which does not seem to have been done. Taking all these aspects into account as well as the Large Bench decision cited supra, we recall the earlier Bench Order dtd. 22.05.2003, set aside the impugned orders passed by the adjudicating Commissioner and allow the appeals filed by the department as well as the appeals filed by the respondents by way of remand to the original authority with a direction that these old cases should be re-adjudicated after hearing both sides as expeditiously as possible. The respondents are directed to co-operate in the adjudication and not seek adjournment.
4. These appeals are allowed by way of remand in the above terms.
5. The A.R. is directed to enquire and submit a report fixing responsibility for not listing all the appeals together on 13.3.2003.
(Pronounced in Court)
