- (1.) This writ challenges a final order dated 2nd March 2006, passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, EZB. This final order was passed by a majority of 2:1.
(2.) This writ application was moved before the Court on 9th June, 2006. Directions for filing affidavits were made. No affidavit in opposition is available in the record, though I find an affidavit-in-reply has been filed. This goes to point that a copy of the intended affidavit-in-opposition was served by the respondents upon the petitioner but the affidavit-in- opposition was never filed in Court. The matter appeared in my list for hearing on 25th February, 2010. At the second call the matter was heard in part and was adjourned by me to enable the respondents to appear. I directed the Counsel for the petitioner to serve a notice upon the respondents. This notice was duly served, according to the records. On the adjourned date, even at the second call none appeared for the respondents. In those circumstances I proceeded to decide the matter on the available materials.
(3.) The dispute arose in this way. The writ petitioner is an importer. During October 1998 to February 2001 it imported several consignments of a product called 'Artemia Cyst (Brine Shrimp eggs) '. The dispute is about classification. The petitioner described and declared this product as 'prawn feed '. On this basis these goods were assessed by the customs provisionally by accepting a bank guarantee as security for the duty that may be finally assessed. If the goods were classified by the customs as 'prawn feed ' there was duty exemption before the 1999 budget and only 5% basic duty after that.;