9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber (Technical) Present for the Appellant: Mr. S. Sunil, Advocate. Present for the Respondent: Mr. Govind Dixit, D.R. ORDER PER: B. RAVICHANDRAN The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Pankaj Enterprises, New Delhi imported heavy melting scrap from Cyprus and sold the consignment on high seas sale basis to M/s. Shirish Business Ventures Pvt. Ltd. The proceedings in the present case are with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Commissioner (Appeals) the same was decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 13.12.2012. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals setting aside the penalties on these two parties. Separately, the original order was reviewed by the Commissioner and appeal was preferred by Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals). The said appeal was decided vide the impugned order d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. Ld. A.R. submitted that the first appellate authority order was passed in a hasty manner without waiting for the review period available to the Revenue. Further, the appellants who appeared before the Commissioner (Appeals) at the time of second decision and sought adjournment did not present the presence of first appellate order already issued on the original order. 5. We have heard both the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the Counsel representing the appellant appeared and sought adjournment. Thereafter, they did not appear in spite of notice. The Commissioner (Appeals) passed the impugned order based on records. It is clear that the earlier first appellate order is by the same office and as such not taken note of, which resulted in the present order. As such, we find the present impugned order lacks legal sancti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
