9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the change of view has occurred on account of investigation conducted in the year 2016 and the change in rate of duty. This fact cannot be considered as a reasonable explanation for delay especially when the Revenue’s stand has been upheld by the lower authorities and cannot be made the basis for condoning the delay - delay not condoned - appeal barred by limitation - decided against Revenue. - Application No. C/COD/50004/2017, Application No. C/STAY/50003/2017, Appeal No. C/50008/2017-CU(DB) - Final Order No. 52569/2017-CU (DB) - Dated:- 27-3-2017 - Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri Govind Dixit, DR for the Appellant Shri Sanjay Sachdeva Ms. Neha Gulat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent appeal stands filed by the Revenue by reversing its stand that the proper classification would be 8537 i.e. which the assessee was claiming initially. Accordingly, the present appeal stands filed with a delay of 749 days, with a request to condone the same. On being questioned as to why there is a change in the Revenue s stand and how the Revenue can be said to be aggrieved by the impugned orders of the authorities below when the original adjudicating authority as also the Commissioner (A) has held against the assessee by accepting the Revenue s classification. Ld. DR appearing for the revenue draws our attention to the fact that subsequent to the passing of the impugned orders, an independent investigation was taken up by the Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said order of Additional Commissioner and it was only the assesse who challenged the same before Commissioner (A). 6. The appellate authority also upheld the Revenue s stand and rejected the assessee s appeal. When the Revenue s view stand accepted by both the authorities below, we really fail to understand as to how the Revenue can be aggrieved with the said orders. Merely, because subsequently the basic customs duty was nil in respect of 8504 heading, the Revenue cannot be given liberty to file the appeal on the ground that the adoption of classification under heading 8504 has resulted in Revenue s loss. It may not be out of place to mention here that the first order of the Additional Commissioner was not challenged by the Revenue, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no. 8183-8184 of 2013 wherein by relying upon the precedent decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag, it was held that adoption of liberal approach while dealing with the application for condonation of delay, is required to be adopted and the cause of substantial justices deserves to be preferred over the technical consideration. Whereas there can be no quarrel about the legal issue that the reasonable delays should be condoned in the public interest and substantial justice is to be preferred over the technical issue but as already observed in the present case that the Revenue has not explained huge delay of 749 days at all and the only reason advanced by the Revenue is that the change of v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
