9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (8) TMI 504 - AT - CustomsAdjournment of appeal - Notice is also hereby given to the assessee to show cause why the appeal shall not be dismissed for the abuse of process of law and other consequence of the law to follow for not bringing out the fact of pendency of appeal No. 136/2007 while appeal No. 114/2007 was disposed on 7-8-2007 - The appellant is also required to explain being present before court, in person, on 22-10-2010 on the aforesaid matters and also is required to file a written reply on the above duly verified by an affidavit before the Tribunal on the next date of hearing on 22-10-2010 - Till then the matter is adjourned
Issues:
1. Disposal of appeal due to repeated litigation. 2. Notice issued under Section 129C(7) of Customs Act, 1962 for repeated appeals. Analysis: 1. The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore, dealt with the issue of the disposal of an appeal due to repeated litigation. The advocate representing the appellant requested an adjournment due to difficulties. The respondent pointed out that a previous appeal, C/114/2007, concerning the same Order-in-Appeal as the present appeal, had already been disposed of. The case record confirmed this fact, indicating that the present appeal, C/136/2007, could be liable for dismissal. However, before making a final decision, the appellant needed to be given an opportunity to respond. 2. Furthermore, the Tribunal issued a notice under Section 129C(7) of the Customs Act, 1962, to the assessee regarding the repeated filing of appeals. The notice required the assessee to explain the reasons for filing multiple appeals against the same Order-in-Appeal. The assessee was directed to appear before the court, provide a written reply verified by an affidavit, and explain the circumstances leading to the repeated appeals. The matter was adjourned until the next hearing date for the appellant to comply with the requirements of the notice. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the appellant to address the issue of repeated appeals and the potential consequences for not disclosing the pendency of previous appeals.
|
