##PAGE1##

Customs Appeal Nos. C/ 20187-20292/2020

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

BANGALORE

REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 2

Customs Additional Evidence Application No. 20408 of 2025

in

Customs Appeal No. 20187 of 2020

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal Nos. COC-CUSTM-000-APP-98 to 103/2019-20

dated 08.01.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Cochin.)

M/s. Ideal Impex

IV/408, Fidas Building,

Thottumugham, Aluva,

Ernakulam,

Kerala – 683 105. …….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Commissioner of Customs,

Customs House,

Willingdon Island,

Cochin – 682 009. …..Respondent(s)

WITH

(i) Customs Additional Evidence Application No. 20406 of

2025 in Customs Appeal No. 20188 of 2020 (Shri.

Abbas. T. A, Managing Partner, M/s. Ideal Impex)

(ii) Customs Additional Evidence Application No. 20409 of

2025 in Customs Appeal No. 20189 of 2020 (M/s.

Master Industries)

(iii) Customs Additional Evidence Application No. 20405

of 2025 in Customs Appeal No. 20190 of 2020 (M/s.

Global Impex)

(iv) Customs Additional Evidence Application No. 20407

of 2025 in Customs Appeal No. 20291 of 2020 (M/s.

Perfect Industries)

(v) Customs Additional Evidence Application No. 20410 of

2025 in Customs Appeal No. 20292 of 2020 (M/s.

Goodwill Industries)

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal Nos. COC-CUSTM-000-APP-98 to

103/2019-20 dated 08.01.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Customs

(Appeals), Cochin.)

APPEARANCE:

Mr. M. S. Sajeev Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr. M. Sreekanth, Asst. Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent.

Page 1 of 3

Customs Appeal Nos. C/ 20187-20292/2020

CORAM:

Hon’ble Mr. P.A. Augustian, Member (Judicial)

Hon’ble Mr. Pullela Nageswara Rao, Member (Technical)

Final Order Nos. 20091-20096 /2026

Date of Hearing: 28.01.2026

Date of Decision: 28.01.2026

PER: P.A. AUGUSTIAN

These 6(six) appeals are filed by the respective appellants against

Orders-in-Appeal Nos. COC-CUSTM-000-APP-98 to 103/2019-20 dated

08.01.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Cochin.

2. The issue in the present appeal is whether the Appellants who had

imported parts of pedestal fan, table fan and wall fans had imported the

complete product and by declaring it as parts, whether they have made

an attempt to evade payment of counter vailing duty (CVD) on the basis

of Maximum Retail Price (MRP) as a complete product. During pendency

of the present appeals, Appellants had produced additional documents

and also filed an application to accept additional grounds in the appeal.

3. When the appeal and the petition came up for hearing, the

Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the finding of the

Adjudication authority that the Appellant had imported complete

pedestal fan, table fan and wall fans is unsustainable and to

substantiate their claim, they have produced the VAT returns and other

documents which are the documents obtained from the statutory

authorities.

4. Learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the Revenue strongly

objected the petitions on the ground that the goods are imported in the

year 2014 to 2016 and the grounds raised by the Appellant were not

submitted before the Adjudication authority and without considering the

issue in details, this Tribunal cannot adjudicate the issue by considering

such additional grounds and documents at this stage.

Page 2 of 3

Customs Appeal Nos. C/ 20187-20292/2020

5. Heard both sides and considered their submissions.

6. We find force in the submission made by Learned Authorised

Representative (AR), to consider additional documents and amendment

the grounds of appeal at this stage when these issues were not raised

before the Adjudication authority would not be proper. However, in the

interest of justice, we feel that if an opportunity is extended to the

Appellant to raise all these issues before the Adjudication authority and

to produce all the relevant documents, Adjudication authority can

consider the evidential value of such documents in the Denovo

adjudication.

7. Accordingly, impugned orders are set aside and appeal is

remanded for Denovo Adjudication. Appellants are dire