9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter nine months from the said order, on 26.11.2015. The clarification from the Board was issued in F.No.341/30/2012-TRU on 22.12.2015. The Deputy Commissioner thereon vide a letter dt. 12.04.2016 had conveyed the said clarification and directed the appellant to pay up the demand amount along with interest immediately - the remand instructions in Commissioner (Appeals) dt. 27.02.2015 sought to be appealed against by the appellant, has already been acted upon by the authority below and a decision inter alia directing to pay up the demanded amount along with interest has been thereafter issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appellant cannot have any grievance against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) since that has been acted upon. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he receipt of the communication dated 12.04.2016 from the lower adjudicating authority. The time spent before the Hon ble High Court would necessarily have to be excluded in light of the provisions of The Limitation Act. 2.1 When the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellant, Ld. Advocate Shri Hari Radhakrishnan submitted the following chronology of events : S.No. DATE EVENTS 1 03.04.2012 18.06.2012 28.09.2012 The Appellant filed bills of entry no.6445028/03.04.2012, 7141127 / 18.06.2012 and 8072900 / 28.09.2012 at Chennai Customs for import of Carbon Less Paper Black Image under CTH 48099000. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2015. 7 01.06.2016 The Appellant filed writ petition No.W.P.No.18828 of 2016 challenging the Order-in-Appeal No.212-215/2015 dated 27.02.2015, confirming the Order-in-Original No.3/2014 dated 26.11.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Group 2) was filed before the Hon ble High Court of Madras. 8 01.06.2016 Appellant also filed Writ petition No.W.P.No.18829 of 2016 challenging the communication dated 12.04.2016 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Group 2), was filed before the Hon ble High Court of Madras. 9 11.09.2018 Order dated 11.09.2018 was passed by the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clarification from the Board regarding the point of dispute and if any clarification comes to extend the benefit of notification, then the same should be given to the appellants. He submits that pursuant to this appeal, the clarification was sought for by Deputy Commissioner and the clarification received from Board was conveyed to the appellant against which only they had gone to the High Court. Hence the appeal against the subsequent decision conveyed by Deputy Commissioner will lie to Commissioner (Appeals) and not before CESTAT. 4.1 Heard both sides. After hearing both sides, we find that the Ld. A.R is correct in his assertions. The order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 27.02.2015 had disposed of the appeal of appellant by directin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oximate grievance to the order of Commissioner (Appeal) dt. 27.02.2015. 4.4 Viewed in this light, the order dated 27.02.2015 would cease to an impugned order and instead the order / decision that now may be appealable is only the order / decision conveyed dt. 12.04.2016 issued from F.No.341/30/2012 TRU by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Group-II), which will lie only to the Commissioner (Appeals). 4.5 It is also pertinent to note that the Hon ble High Court of Madras vide their order dt. 11.09.2018 in W.P. No.18828/2016 and W.M.P. No.16435 of 2016 held as under : The writ petitioner is at liberty to approach the Appellate authorities and thereafter, before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 129 (A) of the Custom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
