9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thur, DR JUDGEMENT Per G. Raghuram: We have heard Shri K. K. Anand, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri R.K. Mathur, learned DR for the Revenue. We consider it appropriate to dispose of the appeals, at the stage of listing of interlocutory applications. 2. The several appeals are preferred against orders-in-appeal dated 07.08.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td.), for recovery, invoking the extended period of limitation and further seeking to impose penalty besides recovery of interest. Eventually, by the order dated 31.03.2011, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed interest and penalties. Aggrieved by the adjudication order, the appellant preferred an appeal alongwith an application for stay. By the order dated 06.07.2011, the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation) and the order dated 07.08.2012 (rejecting the appeals for non-compliance with the condition) are unsustainable. It is contended that the appellate authority had dismissed the application for modification (of the order dated 06.07.2011) without providing the appellant a reasonable opportunity for submitting justification for seeking modification; since the order dated 13.07.2012 is invalid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication could have been entertained, as the Commissioner (Appeals) lacks jurisdiction to review his order. The order dated 13.07.2012 rejecting the appellant's application for modification, whether passed after notice and opportunity to the appellant or otherwise, is unassailable. If the order dated 13.07.2012 (rejecting the appellant application for modification) is set aside on the ground of vio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
