2003 (10) TMI 531

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aving examined the records and heard both the sides, I find that this case needs to be disposed of summarily. Accordingly, the stay application is allowed and the appeal is taken up. 2. The original authority had confirmed against the appellants a demand of duty of Rs. 37,850/- and imposed on them a penalty of Rs. 2,500/-. Against that decision the party preferred appeal to the Commissioner (App .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssioner (Appeals) dated 23-10-2002, which stated that their application for modification had been rejected. Later on, they received final order of the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby their appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with Section 35F ibid. 3. Hence the present appeal. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellants has narrated the above facts and submitted that the impugned order has been passe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was passed by the lower appellate authority. What was done was issuance of a letter by the Superintendent to the party intimating that the Misc. application filed by the latter had been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). Such a proceeding cannot be sustained. I am of the view that, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the matter must go back to the Commissioner (Appeals). He shall re- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X