Page 149 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

2020 ] GKB OPHTHALMICS LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, GOA 827

cating that main ground of non-removal of wastage and hence demand being
premature as agitated by appellant in his appeal has not been discussed at all -
Another ground agitated that SION norms are not applicable to EOUs has also
not been discussed - ROM application of appellant also dismissed with a cryp-
tic order - In view of above, impugned non-speaking order set aside and mat-
ter remanded to Tribunal for fresh disposal as expeditiously as possible by
addressing two main grounds ibid - Section 129B of Customs Act, 1962. [paras
4, 5, 6, 7, 8]
Matter remanded
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri C.A. Ferreira with Rajiva Srivastava,
Advocates, for the Appellant.
Ms. Priyanka Kamat, Standing Counsel, for the Re-
spondent.
[Judgment per : M.S. Sonak, J. (Oral)]. - Heard Mr. C.A. Ferreira, who
appears along with Advocate Mr. Rajiva Srivastava for the appellants in all these
appeals and Ms. P. Kamat, the Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent in
all these appeals.
2. The Learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that these appeals
can be disposed of by a common judgment and order, since, the issues involved
are identical and, in fact, the challenge is basically to the common judgment and
order dated 14-9-2017 made in Appeal Nos. A/89748 to 89751/2017-CB by the
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) [2018 (363) E.L.T.
631 (Tri.-LB)].
3. These appeals were admitted on 9-4-2019 on the following substan-
tial questions of law :
(i) Whether Revenue was justified in demanding customs duties on the
wastage/brokerage available within the factory premises of the ap-
pellant/assessee and were neither exported nor removed from the
bounded warehouse?
(ii) Whether the Revenue could have imposed customs duties on the al-
legation that there was breach of Policy Sion Norms by the appel-
lant/assessee?
4. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order made by the Tri-
bunal, we find that the two main grounds which were raised and urged by the
appellants have not even been adverted to, much less, considered and disposed
of.
5. The first ground raised by the appellants in the appeals before the
Tribunal was that the demand of duty was entirely premature, because the wast-
age generated was not even removed from the warehouse and was, in fact, lying
in the warehouse. Mr. Ferreira points out that the show cause notice issued to the
appellants supports this position. Accordingly, this issue, which goes to the root
of the matter, has not at all been adverted to and decided by the Tribunal, though
we find that the same was specifically raised by the appellants before the Tribu-
nal.
6. The second issue raised by the appellants was that the “SION
Norms” were applicable only to advance licence holders and not to the appel-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  149