Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2014 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 102 - CESTAT BANGALORECondonation of delay - Demand of differential duty - Enhancement in value of goods - Rejection of transaction value - Copnfiscaton of goods - Redemption fine - Held that:- What is required to the appellant is that justice needs to be done. No doubt, the law is important and the Commissioner has no power to condone the delay beyond the condonable period. Nevertheless, the fact remains that in this case, the covering letter which we reproduced above would show clearly that 2 sets of appeal papers filed by M/s Hotel Ashok and Sri Ashok G. Koti were enclosed and the same was acknowledged also. When the appeal was filed on behalf of the Managing Partner contesting the personal penalty of ₹ 10 lakhs imposed on him, it is difficult to believe that another appeal was not filed by the Hotel. In view of this matter, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have considered the appeal as having been filed on the date of receipt of the covering letter. In our opinion, in this case, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have heard the appeal and stay application filed by the appellants and taken a decision in accordance with law. Therefore, we set aside both the impugned orders and remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the stay application as well as the appeal in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellants. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|