ORDER
M.P. Bohra, Member (J)
1. This appeal has been filed against the order of Commissioner of Customs, Cochin dated 31st July, 2003.
2. We have heard S/Shri Uma Kr. Dutta, S. Dasgupta and Ujjwal Kr. Bose, all Advocates, for the appellants and Shri N.K. Mishra, ld. JDR for the respondents.
3. Shri Dasgupta submits that this case was remanded by this Tribunal vide its Order No. S-1134/A-1170/Kol/2002 dated 24-10-2002. The adjudicating authority was directed to consider the documents filed by the appellants and to decide the matter afresh in the light of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd., Haryana v. C.C. Ex., Mumbai [2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.)]. He submits that the direction of the Tribunal has not been complied with and the documents were not considered by the Commissioner. He, therefore, submits that the case may be remanded back to the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin for complying with the direction given by the Tribunal.
4. Shri Mishra submits that the directions have been complied with and the case may kindly be decided on merits.
5. We have considered the rival contentions raised by the ld. Advocates and the ld. JDR. The following directions were given by the Tribunal while remanding the case to the Commissioner for fresh consideration :
“4. After giving our careful consideration to the submissions made by the ld. Advocate and the ld. SDR, we find ourselves agreeing with the ld. Advocate. The evidence produced by the appellants in the shape of documents in support of its contention that the import was made as a result of special offer by the manufacturer/supplier in respect of old ball bearings, cannot be brushed aside on the simple ground that they were produced at the time of filing of reply to the show cause notice, without examining the same and without testing the veracity of the same. The appellants have also produced these documents during the course of investigations and as such, the Commissioner’s finding that the same cannot be looked into, is not being appreciated by us.
5. In view of the foregoing discussions, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner for examining the said documents and decide the matter afresh in the light of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd., Haryana v. C.C. Ex., Mumbai (cited above). The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.”
6. From perusal of the order of the Commissioner of Customs, it reveals that the Commissioner has not considered the documents produced by the appellants. He observed as under :
“All the correspondence produced later on were after the value was questioned and showcause notice issued.”
It is abundantly clear that the Commissioner has not taken into consideration while passing the order the documents produced by the appellants. From perusal of the documents produced by the appellants, it reveals that the documents pertain to the correspondence transacted between the buyers and the sellers evidencing the sale of impugned goods in question. Prima facie of such materials could not have been rejected as fabrication or brought out as a result of showcause notice. The authorities below should have caused necessary verification about the correctness of the transaction and reached findings before the confirming duty demand. The rejection of documents without assigning any reason was grossly illegal. It is highly objectionable that the direction of the Tribunal has not been complied with by the Commissioner.
7. In view of the above discussions, we set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs on 31st July, 2003 and remand the case to the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin to comply with the direction given by this Tribunal in its Order No. S-1134/A-1170/Kol/2002, dated 24-10-2002.
8. Consequently, the appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.