9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act) seeking to review an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export-I), Mumbai Zone-I) dated 31st March, 2017 (which had dropped / withdrawn a demand notice issued to Petitioner). 3. Dr. Kantawala learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Review order seeks to erroneously reopen an issue that has been settled by the order dated 31st March, 2017 of the Commissioner of Customs (Export-I), Mumbai Zone. The above order dated 31 March 2017 settled the issue by following the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore vs. Kushalchand & Co.(Civil Appeal No. 5808 of 2011) 2011 (265) E.L.T. 109 (Tri. Bang.) decided on 30 October 2015. It is submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e use of the word "blatantly" has to be considered. The word 'blatantly' has been used in the context of having followed the decisions of the Apex Court without appreciating the facts of the case. Undoubtedly, the use of the word 'blatantly' is ill-advised. Particularly, bearing in mind that the order in original dated 31st March, 2017 was passed by the Commissioner of Customs in his official capacity in the light of his understanding. The grievance against the order dated 31 March 2017 could have been worded better. Therefore, the grievance of the Petitioner that the use of the word 'blatantly' indicates disregarding the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not justified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court decisions are certain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n affidavit of the officers concerned explaining the above. We also asked him to explain in the affidavits to be filed the manner in which the decision is taken by the Committee i.e. joint sitting and consultation or independently. Time is sought by the Revenue till 31st October, 2018. 7. Therefore, the decision on whether the Review order dated 24th August, 2017 is without authority of law would have to depend upon the Affidavits which are to be filed by the Revenue. Therefore, the above issue is the only issue which is now left for consideration viz. whether the impugned review order dated 7th August, 2017 is duly authorised or not. On the other issue raised in this Petition, as indicated above does not warrant any interference. 8. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
