9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epresentative JUDGMENT Per : Mr. R.K. Singh; The appellants filed this appeal against OIA No. 157/2012/CUS/ Commr.(A)/KDL dated 03.09.2012 which upheld the OIO No. KDL/ADC/Satyajit/1891/GR-2/2011 dated 28.9.2011, except to the extent that the amount of penalty was reduced from Rs. 2,50,000/- to Rs. 1,71,247/- The appellants have contended that the Additional Commissioner had earlie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is that the subsequent Additional Commissioner could not have modified the order of the earlier Additional Commissioner as the former is not an appellate authority or a revisionary authority viz-a-viz the latter. 2. The learned AR, on the other hand contended that the order was issued after hearing the appellants when they had not taken this plea and thus supported the impugned order. 3. We hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants and the Revenue in any case is not aggrieved by the order of the earlier Additional Commissioner. The appellants are not agitating against the order passed by the earlier Additional Commissioner; (and they also possibly cannot because the said order was passed after the appellants waived the show cause notice, thereby, in effect, agreeing to not insist on following the principles of Natura ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
