9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... findings in respect of each of the show-cause notices and arrived at distinct conclusions in relation to the respondents. This being so, the department should have raised specific grounds against the Commissioners order in relation to each of the respondents. The Revenue has dismally failed to meet this basic requirement of an appeal. It is all the more surprising that no specific relief was claimed in any of the appeals. - C/154 to 161/03, C/176, 179, 182, 188, 192, 193/03 - - - Dated:- 14-12-2010 - Mr. P.G. Chacko, Mr. S.K. Gaule, JJ. Shri P.K. Aggrawal, Jt CDR, for appellant Shri Vipin Kumar Jain and Shri Anil Balani, for respondents Per: P.G. Chacko These appeals were filed by the department against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 26.09.2005 1 Sunil Hemani C/154/03 Employee - CHA C/249/03 2 DeeGee Exports C/155/03 Exporter /Importer C/262/03 3 Shri Radhakrishna Shipping Pvt Ltd C/156/03 CHA C/251/03 4 Rajiv Bajaj C/157/03 Prop-Trini Impex C/252/03 5 Sabu George C/158/03 Employee of CHA C/257/03 6 Srinivas Rajappan C/159/03 Employee of CHA C/261/03 7 Deepak Bajaj C/160/03 Partner DeeGee Exports C/259/03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pping Company C/250/03 23 Blend Syntex C/195/03 Importer ____ 24 Sharan Exports C/196/03 Exporter C/255/03 25 Orient Exports C/214/03 Importer ____ 26 Orient Exports C/287/03 Importer ____ 3. A perusal of the Tribunals order dated 12.1.2007 indicates that the 16 appeals of the Revenue mentioned in the 5th column of the above statement were dismissed by majority decision. The learned advocate has further submitted that the final order dated 12.1.2007 dismissing the appeals of the Revenue attained finality inasmuch as it was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort), JNCH, to ascertain whether the Tribunals order had been accepted or appealed against and that the Commissionerate (Import), JNCH, replied to the effect that there was no entry in their records regarding the Tribunals order. The learned JCDR has also produced copies of the two letters, one dated 27.9.10 and the other dated 24.11.10 of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Import), Review Cell, JNCH, Nhava Sheva, which indicate that any copy of the Tribunals order dated 12.1.07 was never received by the Commissionerate (Import), JNCH. Yet another document which is now available on record is an extract from the relevant records maintained at GPO, Mumbai. This document indicates that a postal article of the CESTAT addressed to the Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the tabulated statement filed by the advocate are pari materia with the corresponding appeals mentioned in the 5th column of the said statement, in all respects including statement of facts, grounds of appeal, and the reliefs prayed for. Therefore, as submitted by the learned counsel, these appeals of the Revenue are only to be dismissed. 6. The learned JCDR has made an endeavour to show that the present batch of appeals is distinct and different from those disposed of by the Tribunal on 12.1.07. It has been submitted that the Revenues appeals which were disposed of by the Tribunal on 12.1.07 pertained to 8 out of 14 show-cause notices which were adjudicated upon by the Commissioner by a common order. According to the learned J.C.D.R., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
