9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that the officer in charge of filing the appeal was transferred. Nothing is stated as to who was the officer responsible for filing the Appeal. In the absence of any particulars, if the Tribunal followed the decision in Chief Postmaster General [2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT] , we cannot hold that the view taken by the Tribunal is perverse. Appeal dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssistant Commissioner of Customs, and certain benefits of exemption notification were denied to the Respondent. It is the case of the Appellant that the Mumbai Zonal Unit gathered intelligence regarding the Respondent. The Principal Commissioner of Customs adjudicated the case. An order was passed on 27 February 2017. The Committee of Chief Commissioner reviewed the order dated 27 February 2017, and the Committee opined that the order dated 27 February 2017 is not legal and proper and a review order was passed on 9 June 2017. As per Section 129D(1) of the Customs Act, the Appeal had to be filed within a period of one month. The Appeal was filed by the Appellant thereafter with a delay of 452 days. The Tribunal in the impugned order noted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On this aspect, Mr. Aadik relied upon the decisions of the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of Prashant Gamatex Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-1 2018(362) E.L.T. 751(Guj.) and Principal Commissioner v/s. Essar Oil Ltd. 2017 (347) E.L.T.432 (Guj.) He has also submitted that adequate reasons were given in the application for condonation of delay. Mr. Yogesh Patki, the learned Counsel for the Respondent relied upon the decision in the case of Chief Post Master General, which is also referred to by the Tribunal. He also relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Central Tax & C.Ex., Mumbai v/s. P.N. Writer and Co. Pvt. Ltd.2019 (367) E.L.T.778 (Bom.) 6. We are not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intentional on the part of the Revenue. There is no mala fide intention and it is a genuine oversight which may kindly not be allowed to affect the merit of the case. The delay is sincerely regretted and immediate efforts have been undertaken to avoid recurrence of such delay in the future. All the officers of the department have been cautioned and all such cases having similar circumstances have been examined to ensure no such delay recurs. Corrective measures have already been undertaken to avoid the recurrence of any such delay in the future. The Revenue has a good case on merits. The Committee in their Review Order dated 09.06.2017 concluded that the adjudicating authority erred in not imposing interest along with the penalty under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
