9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 727X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as filed this appeal against the impugned order wherein it was held by the lower appellate authority that the appellant are not the aggrieved persons. Hence, they have not legal right in all the proceedings of the case. 2. The adjudicating authority imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 2 lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the importer i.e. M/s. Hindustan Uniliver Ltd. by the original order and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion a redemption fine of Rs. 2 lakhs was imposed with penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the importer i.e. M/s. Hindustan Uniliver Ltd. The present appellant being the owner/exporter of the above said impugned goods filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the said confiscation and imposition of the penalty but the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected their appeal holding that the present app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... him of something, or wrongfully affected his title to something. He further relied on Babuaram and others v. State of U.P. and Another (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 689 wherein it was held that the person aggrieved must, be one who has suffered a legal grievance because of a decision pronounced by civil court giving higher compensation for the acquired lands similar to his own while he is denied of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and circumstances of the case, the appellants are having a legal right to challenge the order-in-original before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the facts that the present appellants are the only aggrieved person being the owner of the goods. 8. With these observations, I do not find any merit in the impugned order same is set aside and the Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
