9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 659X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re listed today i.e. 02.01.2013. Thus, the said Applications are taken up today. 2. The Applicant had filed these Applications mentioning at para 3 of both the Applications that grave irreparable harm, loss and injury would be caused to the Applicant, if the Appeals are not taken up for hearing early on out-of-turn basis. The ld. Advocate submitted that these are live consignments and since lying for long time waiting clearance, would invite heavy demurrage charges. 3. Ld. AR for the Revenue has no objection in allowing the Miscellaneous Applications for early hearing of the Appeals. 4. In these circumstances, these Applications are allowed and with the consent of both sides, the Appeals are taken up for hearing. 5. At the outset, the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /letters of the Assistant Commissioner dated 20.12.2012, it is clear that the said decisions/letters were issued by him after examining the issue independently, and not on the direction of the ld. Commissioner. He has submitted that a letter dated 30.10.2012 was written to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Paradip, by M/s. Orissa Stevedores Limited, requesting for amendment to the IGM in favour of the present Appellant. He has further submitted that another letter dated 29.11.2012 was addressed to the ld. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Bhubaneswar by the Appellant but a copy was also endorsed to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Paradip. Another letter dated 07.09.2012 was also addressed to the Assistant Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner of Customs, including the letter dated 10.12.2012 addressed to the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Bhubaneswar, the Order was passed by him, which leads to the inevitable inference that the decisions were passed by him on merit, after considering all representations. No documentary evidence has been produced, either a letter or any correspondence from the Department, evidencing that the Orders were passed by the ld. Commissioner of Customs and were communicated by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs to the Appellant. In absence of any such prima facie evidence, I do not find merit in the submission of the ld. Advocate that the relevant files be called for and examined to ascertain whether the decisions were passed by the Assistant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
