9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 762X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner (Appeals) to take up the appeal and decide on merits. - The original order of the Commissioner (Appeals) imposing a condition for the deposit of 50% of the demand was dated 8.5.2013. As against the said order, the appellant did not file an appeal before the CESTAT. Instead, the appellant went before the very same Commissioner (Appeals) and sought a modification. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not refuse to modify, after considering the merits. But, he simply refused to entertain the modification application on the ground that he had become functus officio. It was only as against this order, the appellant filed an appeal before the CESTAT. Therefore, the CESTAT was not obliged to go into this question. However, on the other questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on or before 7.6.2013. Without challenging the said order before the CESTAT, the appellant went before the same Commissioner (Appeals) and moved an application for modification of the stay order on the ground that when the goods are bonded, the question of payment of duty as a condition for the grant of stay would not arise under section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. The petition for modification was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by an order dated 5.6.2013 on the ground that the failure to comply with the conditional order would result in the automatic dismissal of the stay petition and that the Commissioner (Appeals) would become functus officio thereafter. 5. Aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merit. Hence, it is rejected. 8. Insofar as the second contention is concerned, we do not think that we would go into it. The original order of the Commissioner (Appeals) imposing a condition for the deposit of 50% of the demand was dated 8.5.2013. As against the said order, the appellant did not file an appeal before the CESTAT. Instead, the appellant went before the very same Commissioner (Appeals) and sought a modification. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not refuse to modify, after considering the merits. But, he simply refused to entertain the modification application on the ground that he had become functus officio. It was only as against this order, the appellant filed an appeal before the CESTAT. Therefore, the CESTAT was not obl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
