Himson Textiles Enginr. Indust. Ltd., M/s. v. Commr. of Customs, Mumbai, (SC)
BS88588
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before:- S.P. Bharucha, N. Santosh Hegde and Ms. Ruma Pal, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 5469 of 1997. D/d.
1.2.2000.
M/s. Himson Textiles Enginr. Indust. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Commr. of Customs, Mumbai - Respondent
Customs Act, 1962, Section 14 - Valuation - Commissioner (Appeals) made valuation - Decision of Supreme Court in Union of India under Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd (1995 AIR SCE 1519) followed therefor - Appellate Tribunal applying ratio of decision of Supreme Court in Collector of Customs (Prev.), Ahmedabad vs. Essar Gujarat Ltd (1996) 885LT 609 - Held, that judgement in the case of Essar Gujarat having no application in this case - Judgement and order of Tribunal set aside - Matter remanded back for being heard and decided afresh.
[Para 2]
Cases Referred :-
Collector of Customs (Prev.), Ahmedabad v. Essar Gujarat Ltd., (1996)88 ELT 609.
Union of India v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., (1995)76 ELT 481.
JUDGMENT
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., (1996)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 and Mahindra Ltd., (1995)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 and Mahindra and, indeed, to the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd., (1987)28 ELT 390 which was approved by the order of this Court on 26th April, 1989.
3. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.