2007 (8) TMI 318 - AT - Customs

Commissioner (Appeals) rejected appellant s plea of exemption on the ground that the same were not raised before the adjudicating authority or even in the first round of litigation - it is seen that the original assessment order was kept alive by filing an appeal there against held that claim of the appellant as regards benefit of notification is a question of law and can be raised at any point of time appellant submit that findings of the appellate authority that the notifications in question were not valid, are factually incorrect appeal is allowed by way of remand

Summary

Issues: Appeal dismissal due to absence, Claim for benefit of notifications, Validity of notifications, Remand to original adjudicating authority

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD, the appellant's appeal was dismissed after noting their absence during the hearing. The appellant explained that they were under the impression that the next date would be intimated to them, leading to their absence. Upon considering this explanation, the Tribunal recalled the order of dismissal. The main grievance of the appellant was that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not allow their plea to raise their claim for the benefit of certain notifications. The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals), who remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority. The fresh order passed in the de novo proceedings was the subject matter of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal emphasized that the claim of the appellant regarding the benefit of notifications is a question of law that can be raised at any point in time. They held that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have considered the claim, especially since the appellate authority's observation on the validity of the notifications was disputed by the appellant's representative. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for reconsideration of the various notifications under which the appellant had claimed benefits. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the Record of Appeal (ROA) was disposed of by the Tribunal on the pronounced date.