9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be explained on the ground that the Revenue had written letters to the Registry of the learned CESTAT attempting to ascertain the status of the appeal. The learned CESTAT, after examining the said letters found, on the basis of the communications dated 23.11.2020 and 17.12.2020, that the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Review) had admitted that on verbal enquiries, information was provided that the appeal papers had been returned back to that office by the Registry of the CESTAT - The learned CESTAT held that once the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Review) had become aware that the appeal had been returned back, at least at that stage, he could have taken steps for filing a fresh appeal, however, the appeal was filed much belatedly on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 17.12.2014. 7. The controversy before the Adjudicating Authority related to the evaluation of the goods imported by the respondent from related foreign suppliers. After a detailed examination, the Adjudicating Authority found that although the foreign suppliers were related to the respondent in terms of Rule 2(2) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, the value declared by the respondent (importer) was not influenced by their relationship. 8. The Adjudicating Authority held that the value declared in the invoices be accepted as transaction value under Rule 3(3)(a) of the Valuation Rules, 2007 subject to usual checks and scrutiny. 9. The Adjudicating Authority also specified that the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicated that the appeal was being returned for the reason that the defects had not been removed till that date. 15. Despite, the receipt of the said letter, the Revenue did not take any expeditious steps for curing the defects or re-lodging the appeal. 16. The Revenue, once again, filed an appeal on 10.02.2022 impugning the Appellate Order dated 06.10.2017. Admittedly, after a delay of four years and nineteen days. Thus, the appellant also sought the following prayer: b) delay of 4 years 19 days in filing the appeal filed by the petitioner before the CESTAT may kindly be condoned; 17. The appeal was taken up by the learned CESTAT on 23.08.2022 and the learned CESTAT found that the appellant had not sufficiently explained the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
