9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 821X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs in original passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Group-IV) followed by a communication being S60(Misc)-07/10A Gr IV dated April 24, 2012 of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Appraising Group-IV, Custom Houses, Kolkata, demanding a total sum of ₹ 8,14,660/- along with interest under threat of recovery action under the Customs Act, 1962. The orders in original under challenge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14,660=00 2. The orders claiming duty were passed on the sole ground that the petitioners had not produced the requisite end use certificate of use of the imported goods in their manufacturing factory/unit within the time prescribed. 3. Mr. J. P. Khaitan appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the impugned orders in original have been passed without issuing a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s barred by limitation and rightly dismissed. The Appellate Authority had no power to condone the delay. These observations are prima facie. The appeal before the Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has also been dismissed with the observation that there was no provision whereby the Commissioner of Appeals could condone delay beyond 60 days. 4. Prima facie , in the instant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st 21, 2012 or until further orders whichever is earlier. Till August 21, 2012 the demands in terms of the impugned orders in original shall not be enforced against the petitioners. 8. The matter requires to be decided on affidavits. 9. Affidavit-in-opposition be filed within three weeks from date. Affidavit-in-Reply thereto, if any, be filed within one week thereafter. Let the writ applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
