9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2016, W.P.No.32059 of 2016 - - X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2016 (335) E.L.T. 679 (P&H), wherein it was held that the Joint Secretary of the Central Government has no jurisdiction to decide the revision. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: "8.In the present case, the impugned order was passed by the Joint Secretary to Government of India who was also Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs. Thus, the order-in-appeal as well as revisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith. However, this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter. Nevertheless, this Court can examine as to whether the Commissioner (Appeals) has considered the matter in a proper perspective. On a reading of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) it is evidently clear that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not taken into consideration the definition of Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed goods. However, while examining the appeal petition, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has not made a thorough exercise in this regard. In fact there has not been proper examination as to whether the goods which were brought by the petitioner are prohibited goods. Therefore, this Court is of the view that even if the impugned order is set aside, the matter has to be remanded to the second r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
