TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthorities arose in relation to a ship purchased by the petitioner firm from Shipping Corporation of India Limited for the purpose of breaking up the ship. The dispute centered round the fact as to whether the ship which was built in India and registered in India was amenable to the customs duty - the case of the petitioner being that no duty was leviable. The petitioner having been called upon to pay the duty, deposited the same under protest. Thereafter, the petitioner agitated the claim by way of availing the statutory remedies and succeeded right upto the Tribunal. It is also the case of the petitioner that departmental appeal being Tax Appeal No.537 of 2004 came to be dismissed by this Hon'ble Court. In light of the aforesaid fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been filed on 25/11/2005 and thus went to circumvent the period of limitation prescribed statutorily for preferring Tax Appeal. Therefore, the petitioner should not be heard, the petitioner having failed to avail of the statutory remedy within the prescribed period of limitation. He accepted the legal position that CESTAT is final fact finding authority and in this connection he invited attention to Apex Court decision in case of Standard Radiators Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2002) 10 SCC 740. 5 As can be seen from the impugned order of CESTAT, in paragraph No.1 it records : Heard both sides. After hearing both sides , we find that the issue involved in the present case attracts para 99(iii) of Mafatlal Inds. Vs. U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and hence no fault should be found with the impugned order. The proposition would have been acceptable provided the impugned order had even given an indication to this effect. The Tribunal has not even cared to state that the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) are not disputed. In fact, the principal grievance on behalf of the petitioner is that none of its submissions have been taken into consideration. 8 There is one more reason why CESTAT is required to give reasons after recording findings while passing an order. The said order is amenable to statutory appeal. How does the High Court, which is an appellate authority under the statute, appreciate the correctness or otherwise of an order made by CESTAT in absence of any r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
