9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel for the parties. 2. The Appellant has challenged the common order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Appeal Nos. 446 and 447 of 2012 dated 7 March 2019. By the impugned order the Tribunal has remanded the matters to the Commissioner (Appeals) with certain observations. 3. The Appellant has framed the following questions as substantial questions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill date of payment, which was short levied in respect of the consignment in question. Reasons for short levy was given that goods imported- Kapok, other vegetable fibers, should have been assessed under Entry 53.05 when the Appellant had claimed same assessment under 52.01 which was not correct and therefore Section 28 of Customs Act was invoked. An order came to be passed by the Assistant Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted the written submissions. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, held that the Commissioner (Appeals) was required to ascertain as to whether Kapok was used primarily for manufacturing of textile before rendering any finding. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the Appellant that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have confined the case for determination of issue before it outlined in the sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ught to have been preceded by a notice and that too which is specified under Section 28 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the Respondents on the other hand submitted that the order is only of remand. There is no finding against the Appellant in this order and all the contentions that the Appellant wishes to raise in these Appeals can be urged before the Commissioner (Appeals). 8. Firstly there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
