9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Commissioner of Customs in his order - Even the reliance placed on section 129D(4) by learned counsel appearing for the appellant, in support of his submission, also is of no avail to take their case further - Sub-section (4) of Section 129D of the Act cannot be read in isolation - Thus, no reason is found to interfere with the order dated 30.11.2004 impugned in the present appeal – Decided against Appellant. - CSTA No. 14 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 16-1-2014 - DILIP B. BHOSALE AND B. MANOHAR, JJ. For the Appellant : Sri. T.M. Venkata Reddy For the Respondent : Sri. Kiran S. Javali Adv. and N. Anand., Adv. ORDER 1. Heard Mr. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. N. Anand, Amicus curie. 2. Thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner (Appeals). The Order-in-Original was passed by the Additional Commissioner and therefore, the authorization given by the Commissioner of Customs to the Assistant Commissioner to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is not in ' terms of section 129D(2). It is also stated that this aspect has been gone into by the Apex Court in the case of CCE v. M.M. Rubber Co. 1991 (55) ELT 289 (SC); and by the Tribunal in the cases of (a) Supreme Industries Ltd. v. CCE 1999 (114) ELT 1003 (Tribunal) and (b) Dhampur Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. CCE 1999 (108) ELT 498 (Tribunal). 2. Heard both sides in the matter. 3. On a careful consideration, we are satisfied that in terms of the provisions of section 129D(2), the authority who pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ination of such points arising out of the decision or order as may be specified by the Commissioner of Customs in his order. Even the reliance placed on sub-section (4) of section 129D of the Act by learned counsel appearing for the appellant, in support of his submission, also in our opinion, is of no avail to take their case further. Sub-section (4) of Section 129D of the Act cannot be read in isolation. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 30.11.2004 impugned in the present appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Dismissal of the appeal shall not preclude the appellant to take a remedy, if any, available in law, if so advised, for redressal of their grievance. We may place on record a word of appreciation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
