9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Steel Co. Ltd., 2004 (165) E.L.T. 386 (S.C.), Commissioner of Central Excise v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., 2006 (203) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) and Hyderabad Industries Ltd v. Union of India, 1999 (108) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.). Plea of the petitioner was not accepted. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh, which was dismissed. 3. Grievance of the petitioner is that while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, respondent No. 2 not only ignored the settled law but also earlier orders, particulars of which have been furnished in a chart reproduced below :- "Sr. No. Particulars Annexure Date 1 Order of Commissioner (A), Mumbai passed O-I-A holding that CVD is not leviable on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the order, held:- "6. I have examined the case records. The brief issue for consideration is whether CVD was leviable on the import of Zinc Skimmings. The adjudicating authority while disposing of respondent's representation dated 22-10-2007 vide impugned order, inter alia held that CVD was not leviable on the import of Zinc Skimmings and relied upon Order-in-Appeal No. 116/CUS/ APPL/LDH/2007 dated 3-10-2007 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar (Hqrs. At Chandigarh). It has been submitted in the departmental appeal that above cited Order-in-Appeal has not been accepted by the department and an appeal has been filed in the CESTAT. The respondent submitted that all grounds raised in the present appeal are identical as raised in app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the Tribunal, the present appeal filed by the department does not sustain. The respondent have also contested the departmental appeal on the ground of limitation pleading that Order-in-Original was passed by Assistant Commissioner on 16-11-2007 and review order dated 19-2-2008 was passed after 3 months so order is time barred as per Section 129D(3) of Customs Act, 1962. It is observed that as per provisions of Section 129D(3) ibid, the review order is to be passed within a period of three months from the date of communication of the decision or order of adjudicating authority and respondent have not brought on record any evidence to establish that review order in this case was passed after a period of three months from the date of comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
