9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 878X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iance of order from the higher judicial forum. As the case is very old pertaining to the year 1994 to 1996, no purpose would be served by remanding this case once again to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. C/260/2010-DB - FO/A/76843/2018 - Dated:- 15-6-2018 - Mr. P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical) Shri Chandan Kumar DGM (F) - for the appellant Shri S.N. Mittra, AC (AR) - for the respondent ORDER Per Bijay Kumar: This is second round of appeal before this Tribunal. In the first appeal, the Hon ble CESTAT vide order No. A/302/KOL/2002 dated 19.2.2002 remanded the case to the original adjud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority in the impugned order has held: Whereas I do not find enough reasons to disagree with the findings and orders of earlier Commissioner, I am left with limited option to reconsider the duty amount only. Accordingly, I am constrained to hold the findings of earlier Commissioner. 2. The issue involved in this case is that the importer is, M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. a public sector oil company, who was importer for crude oil petroleum in respect of several public sector oil companies. They used to import the goods and distribute the same among the various oil companies as per the policy of the Government of India. The assessments were kept provisional on the ground t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consider in terms of specific remand order passed by this Tribunal. Not only that, he has held in the order that he is constraint to reproduce the order passed by his predecessor which he says is a reasoned one. In the other word, the ld. Adjudicating Authority has not considered the specific direction of this Tribunal and acted above the findings of the Tribunal, which he was not competent to do. This itself is in defiance of the order passed by the Tribunal and is a glaring example of non-application of mind and defiance of order from the higher judicial forum. As the case is very old pertaining to the year 1994 to 1996, no purpose would be served by remanding this case once again to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
