9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he application filed by the Department before the CESTAT as well as the documents sought to be tendered as additional evidence. It is seen that the said documents were received in the office of the Commissioner of Customs from the DRI on 13th October 2008. Yet, for reasons best known to the Department, the application seeking permission to tender the said documents as additional evidence was not f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant. Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate for the Respondent. ORDER 1. This appeal by the Customs Department is against an order dated 7th January, 2015 by the Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dismissing the Department's the Miscellaneous Application No. C/MISC/926/2009-CU[DB] filed in an Appeal No. C/547/2008-CU [DB] filed by the Respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. An adjudication order was passed on 24th April, 2008 by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) confirming the above demand of duty as well as interest and penalty apart from ordering confiscation the seized goods and its provisional release upon payment of redemption fine. 5. While the Assessee s appeal was against the aforementioned order was pending before the CESTAT, the Department file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to tender the said documents as additional evidence was not filed before the CESTAT till 26th October 2009 i.e., more than one year after the receiving the said additional evidence from the DRI. 7. Considering that the Department has slept over the matter for over a year, the Court is of the view that no interference with the impugned order of the CESTAT is called for. The Court is, therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
