9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that the order was issued by the third respondent, the Joint Commissioner of Customs. The printed format in which Ext.P6 order is issued indicates that an appeal against the order lies to the Commissioner of Customs. It was in such circumstances that the appeal got to be filed before the fourth respondent. It is true that while filing an appeal, the specific provision under which the appeal is filed should be mentioned. But having accepted the appeal on file and proceeded to hear the appeal on merits, the fourth respondent should not have rejected the appeal on the premise that the provisions quoted therein are vague. Even though the learned Standing Counsel vehemently contended that the fourth respondent had decided the appeal on meri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner had cleared pepper to the Domestic Tariff Area during the period 12.06.1998 to 09.11.1998 without paying the applicable duty, Ext.P2 show cause notice was issued requiring payment of the duty demanded therein. The show cause notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Customs) invoking power under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner preferred Ext.P5 reply denying the allegation of suppression and raising a legal contention that the notice is hit by limitation inasmuch as the demand pertained to a period prior to six months of the notice. Thereafter, Ext.P4 fresh show cause notice was issued invoking the larger period of limitation provided under Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal was filed being vague, the fourth respondent had abdicated the appellate power vested in that authority. It is contended that the illegal action of the fourth respondent resulted in the petitioner's contentions raised in the appeal, both legal and factual, remaining unanswered. It is pointed out that the order appealed against was issued by the Commissioner of Customs and that the order itself indicated that an appeal against Ext.P6 could be filed before the fourth respondent. It is further contended that after having accepted the appeal on file, the fourth respondent should not have dismissed the appeal based on a technicality. The learned Counsel submits that, if the appeal was found to be not maintainable before the fourth re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Excise Commissionerate. 7. Even though the learned Standing Counsel vehemently contended that the fourth respondent had decided the appeal on merits, the findings in Ext.P7 do not support that contention. As far as the legal contention of the notice being time barred is concerned, all that is stated in Ext.P7 is that in the impugned order, the claim of the demand being time barred was found to be not maintainable and certain notifications to hold the appellant liable to duty were cited. This observation in Ext.P7 cannot, under any circumstance, be termed as a finding on merit. That being the case, Ext.P7 is liable to be interfered with. In the result, Ext.P7 is quashed and the writ petition allowed by directing the fourth responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
