9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er (T)]. - In this appeal filed by M/s. Unroyal Textiles Industries Ltd., the issue involved is whether the appeal filed by them before the Commissioner (Appeals) was time-barred or not. 2. Shri Vipul Raheja, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellant had imported software which was cleared under exemption in terms of serial No. 206 of Notification No. 23/98 without payment of duty; that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered as an adjudicating order. The Order to be an adjudicating Order must be a speaking and proper order. Learned Advocate submitted that the present letter contained no reasoning for demanding duty, as such, it is not an Order. 3. Countering the arguments, Shri P.K. Ray, learned DR, submitted that the Deputy Commissioner has passed the Order on 30-6-2000 confirming the demand of duty agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have considered the submissions of both the sides. It has not been disputed by the appellant that the Deputy Commissioner's Order was passed on 30-6-2000 and the appellant wrote a letter to the Deputy Commissioner on 22-7-2000 acknowledging the receipt of the impugned Order. The appeal was filed on 14-2-2001 that is after more than six months of the receipt of the impugned Order. As per Section 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Deputy Commissioner shows that he had duly taken into account the plea and considered that the duty originally demanded is correct. He has, therefore, confirmed the demand under Section 28 of the Customs Act. It is also mentioned in the Order that appeal against it lies with the Commissioner within three months period and the appeal should be court fee stamped. Thus, there was nothing which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
