9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 1012X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant. This appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law. Whether the Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in holding that the letter dated February 7, 2005 of the Superintendent of Customs, Customs House, Jamnagar, could not be considered as appealable order and that minimum obligation on the part of the Revenue was to supply a copy of the bill of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uarantee for differential duty of Customs payable under Section 14(1) and Section 14(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. It was clarified in the order that this arrangement would be subject to the order to be made by the Revenue of final assessment and the copy of the assessment order shall be filed along with affidavit-in-reply. 4. In pursuance of the order dated 7-10-2010 passed by the High Court, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judice and was pending disposal before the High Court, therefore, bank guarantee cannot be invoked. The Superintendent, Customs Department informed by letter dated 16-2-2005 that since the High Court has ordered that arrangement of furnishing bank guarantee for the differential duty of Customs payable under Sections 14(1) and 14(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 would be subject to order to be made for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1962 who has dismissed the appeal as time barred on the ground that final assessment order was made on 7-2-2005 and it was communicated to the respondent on 8-2-2005. Therefore, the appeal was filed with delay. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Jamnagar was challenged by the respondent by filing Appeal No. C/928/2006 before CESTAT, Ahmedabad which has allowed by order dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als) had not decided the matter on merits and the letter dated 16-12-2005 cannot be considered to be an order passed in appeal by the Commissioner which could be challenged before the Tribunal. The question of law framed by this Court is answered in the affirmative against department and in favour of the assessee. Therefore, this appeal is devoid of any merits and it is accordingly dismissed. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
