Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Ramki, V. Ramachandran, Dilli Raja Versus The Additional Commissioner of Customs (PAU) , The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II)

2016 (11) TMI 1202 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Maintainability of appeal - The Statute provides a period of limitation of 60 days to file appeals - pre-deposit - The learned counsel for the petitioners invited the attention of this Court to the circular issued by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 14.10.2014 and sought to impress upon this Court by contending that the Tribunal directed three opportunities/reminders be given so as to ensure that the predeposits are being done - Held that: - In my view, such a circula .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

x Appellate Tribunal as against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) - appeal not maintainable and is dismissed - liberty granted to the petitioners to file appeals as against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). - Writ Petition Nos.36582 to 36587 of 2016 & WMP.Nos.31452 to 31454 of 2016 - Dated:- 24-10-2016 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For Petitioners : Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan For Respondents : Mr.G.M.Syed Nurullah Sheriff, SPC ORDER Mr.G.M.Syed Nurullah She .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rade (Exemption from Application of Rules in Certain Cases) Order, 1993 and seizure of the garments, which were used for concealing the gold bars, were made apart from imposing penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs on each of the petitioners. 3. In W.P.Nos.36583, 36585 and 36587 of 2016, the very same petitioners have challenged the Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dated 18.7.2016, which were filed against the Orders-in-Original dated 17.12.2015. Therefore, the writ petition .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

-in-Original were passed on 17.12.2015 and received by the petitioners on 22.12.2015/21.12.2015. The Statute provides a period of limitation of 60 days to file appeals. However, the petitioners sent letters dated 16.2.2016 as if they are appeals. The office of the second respondent returned the same by a communication to the petitioners dated 19.2.2016 stating that the papers sent by the petitioners cannot be considered as appeals, because the same are incomplete and are not in proper format and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n dated 19.2.2016, the only option available to the petitioners was to send the appeals in proper format and effect predeposit. However, without doing so, the petitioners presented the appeals in the proper format and filed a petition for dispensing with the mandatory condition of predeposit of 7.5%. 7. It appears that the petitioners were not aware of the fact that during the relevant point of time, the Statute stood amended and the erstwhile procedure of dispensing with the condition of predep .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g Rules, the proof of predeposit of 7.5% of the duty/penalty in the form of TR6 Challan has to be filed along with the appeal papers at the time of admission of the appeals. Therefore, the petitioners were advised to effect predeposit of 7.5% and produce proof in order to enable the office of the second respondent to register the appeals. After this communication, after about one month i.e on 13.6.2016, the petitioners effected predeposit and produced proof of payment of such predeposits in the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing been presented within the condonable limit, the second respondent should not have refused to entertain the appeals. 10. From the facts and what is spelt out by the petitioners, it is evidently clear that on the date when the appeals were presented in the proper format on 17.3.2016, the appeals were time barred. Though the period would have been within the condonable limit, the condonation of delay is not automatic. In terms of the provisions of the Statute, the appellant must show sufficient .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version