9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 528X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls) dated 27.04.2018 are set aside - the matter is remitted to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) for a de novo hearing, on merits. Since the petitioner, in a sense, too was responsible, partially, if not wholly, as regards the fate that the matter suffered both before the first appellate authority i.e., the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and the revisional authority, he should be, according to us, burdened with costs of Rs. 25,000/-. - Matter restored back. - W.P.(C) 14142/2022 - - - Dated:- 6-10-2022 - HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON'BLE MS JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU Petitioner Through: Mr Rahul Raheja, Advocate. Respondents Through: Mr Harpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms Suhani Mathur, Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order, by having its representative in Court. The order, if at all, would be defended by one of the parties. 4.3. Thus, in the instant case, the impugned order i.e., the order dated 20.07.2021, will have to be defended, if at all, by respondent no.2. 4.4 This position is not disputed by Mr Singh. 5. Issue notice to respondent no.2. 5.1 Mr Harpreet Singh accepts notice on behalf of the respondent no.2. 6. In view of the order that we propose to pass, Mr Singh says that he does not wish to file a counter-affidavit. 7. Given this stand, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 8. The record shows, that order-in-original was passed on 12.07.2016. 8.1 The operative directions issued by the adjudicatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12.07.2016, pursuant to a show cause notice dated 18.05.2015 being issued. 10.1 Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which, however, was not decided on merits, and was dismissed on the ground of delay. 11. According to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), there was a delay of ten days, and because an application for condonation of delay was not filed, the appeal was not viable. The appeal was, thus, dismissed. 12. The petitioner escalated the matter to the revisional authority. 12.1 The revisional authority via the impugned order dated 20.07.2021, dismissed the revision application. 13. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the revisional authority shows, that although the matter was fixed on several da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st appellate authority i.e., Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), as well as the revisional authority, we are inclined to set aside the order of the revisional authority, and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), with a direction to hear the matter on merits. 15.1 Accordingly, the order of the revisional authority dated 20.07.2021, and that of the first appellate authority i.e., Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dated 27.04.2018 are set aside. 16. The matter is remitted to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) for a de novo hearing, on merits. 17. Since the petitioner, in a sense, too was responsible, partially, if not wholly, as regards the fate that the matter suffered both before the first appellate authority i.e., the Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
