TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... air to be done to the lapse of Revenue by this MA (ROM). Accordingly that is rejected. - E/1120/2008-SM(BR) - 105/2011-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 20-7-2011 - Shri D.N. Panda, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri S.K. Bhaskar, DR, for the Appellant. Shri Aalok Arora, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. Revenue has come in application for restoration of appeal on the ground that Tribunal should not have dismissed its appeal finding that one Commissioner has not dated the authorisation and the other has dated the same to be 30th April 2008. 2. Shri Bhaskar, ld. DR today presents the record to argue that the Committee has approved filing of the appeal finding the impugned order to be neither legal nor proper. Copy of the note sheet is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appealed. In absence of such an application of mind, the Hon ble Court came to the conclusion that there was neither evaluation nor examination done by the Committee leading to formation of opinion to file appeal before Tribunal. Accordingly, it was held that the appeal was not instituted according to the provisions of Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962. In para 5 of the judgment the Hon ble Court held that when the fundamental element of formation of opinion of filing the appeal is missing then no appeal is deemed to be instituted in the eyes of law. In that para it was also observed by the Hon ble Court that ordinarily the court does not non suit the Revenue for a procedural lapse but that case was of such a nature that lapses one a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at a note was put up by the Assistant Commissioner suggesting that the order of Commissioner (Appeals) may please be appealed against. Thereafter the note observed that the file may be marked to the Commissioner Rohtak for decision by the Committee. There is no decision of the Committee on record except the signature of the Commissioner Delhi-III obtained on 19-12-2005 and the signatures of Commissioner Rohtak obtained on 27-12-2005. Both the Commissioners have not even said that they agree with opinion of the Asstt. Commissioner rendered in the Note at X and Y . The only ground in support of the appeal taken in the grounds of appeal is that the opinion of the Committee of Commissioner of Customs was available on the file notings and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
