9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant. The earlier order dated 04.03.2010 and observation made there will not influence the present proceeding. It is also a fact that the appellant has not filed any appeal before the CESTAT against the Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 04.03.2010 therefore, finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order on this point is baseless. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellant was not given proper opportunity to explain the delay in filing an appeal - the Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to decide the issue of valuation as well as delay afresh, after giving opportunity to the appellant. The appeal is allowed by way of remand to the commissioner (Appeals). - Customs Appeal No.191 of 2011 - A/12304/2021 - D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de Bill of Entry No 287057 dated 01.05.2009 was order to be assessed at USD 425 Per MT Under rule 5 of Customs Valuation, 2007 read with section 14(1) of the Customs Act,1962. Accordingly, the Bill of Entry was assessed at enhanced value and the good were given out of charge. 1.2 However, the appellant as if no knowledge of the speaking order filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) Kandla which was registered as Appeal No S/49-282/CUS/KDL/2010 against the assessment of Bill of Entry No 287057 dated 01.05.2009. The Commissioner(Appeals) without going into the merit of assessment dismissed the appeal as non maintainable vide OIA No 68/2010/CUS/COMMR(A)/KDL dated 04.03.2010 on the ground that the appellant have not challenged OIO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecided the appeal on merit Therefore, the merits needs to be considered. 3. Shri R.K Bhashkar, Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He submits that the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the matter in the appeal filed by the appellant against the assessment of Bill of Entry. Therefore, now nothing survives and the appellant cannot agitate the matter again without filing of appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order. He also concedes that no appeal is pending before the tribunal against the order dated 04.03.2010. Therefore, observation made by Learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the order dated 04.03.2010 has attained finality. 4. We have carefully cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls) was filed under legitimate right of the appellant. In this position we are of the view that the earlier order dated 04.03.2010 and observation made there will not influence the present proceeding. It is also a fact that the appellant has not filed any appeal before the CESTAT against the Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 04.03.2010 therefore, finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order on this point is baseless. 5. As regard time limitation is concerned we find that the appellant was not given proper opportunity to explain the delay in filing an appeal. Accordingly, we set aside then impugned order and direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue of valuation as well as delay afresh, after giving opportun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
