TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 845X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h September 2021, it had been listed before this Court for the first time on 27th July 2022, when the matter could not be taken up due to paucity of time, by which time, in any case, the Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion) had already passed the order dated 6th October 2021 upon remand. Since there was no order passed in the present appeal staying the operation of the order impugned, the mere fling of the appeal or its pendency before this Court would thus by itself not be a legal impediment for passing the order dated 6th October 2021 upon remand. The directions having been already carried out and a detailed view having been already expressed by the original authority, in case the matter is considered in appeal by the Tribunal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t nor the respondent requested for remand of the proceedings? (b) Whether the Appellate Tribunal failed to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it under section 129B of the Customs Act in not deciding the appeal on the grounds raised by the appellant and remanding the proceedings to the respondent? (c) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in not deciding the question of limitation and remanding the proceedings to the respondent, when factual aspects were required to be examined to decide such question of limitation were already on record? 4. Briefly stated the material facts are as under : (i) A show cause notice, dated 29th August 2005 was issued by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icating Authority or that it was even raised before it. The Tribunal held as under : 7 We find no record in the impugned order that the bar of limitation was considered by the adjudicating authority or that it was even raised before him. The appellant did not question the correctness of the valuation of export goods undertaken but did, nevertheless, seek cross-examination of certain persons which had been refused; in the light of the substantial delay between the exports and the initiation of proceedings for recovery, this aspect is relevant. Furthermore, in view of the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in Pratibha Syntex Ltd. vs. Union of India (Supra), it would be necessary for the adjudicating authority to firs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thus, it is prayed, the order may be set aside and the Tribunal itself may be directed to decide the matter. . 7 Having regard to the course which we propose to adopt there is no need to discuss the merit of the case. To our mind, it appears that the Tribunal has adopted an easy course in remitting the matter to the Collector. On the materials on record, being an appellate authority, the Tribunal itself should have analysed the evidence and given a factual conclusion. If this course had been adopted the decision could have been rendered in one way or the other. The remit was superfluous and the parties had argued at length. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and remit the matter to it. The Tribunal is dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o order passed in the present appeal staying the operation of the order impugned, the mere fling of the appeal or its pendency before this Court would thus by itself not be a legal impediment for passing the order dated 6th October 2021 upon remand. 9. Be that as it may, the directions having been already carried out and a detailed view having been already expressed by the original authority, in case the matter is considered in appeal by the Tribunal, it would have the benefit of the views expressed on the issues on which the matter stood remanded. At this stage, it would serve no fruitful purpose to hold that the Tribunal ought to have itself determined the issues instead of remanding the matter to save precious time. 10. Be that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
