9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 845X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ') against the order dated 12th March 2021 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ('CESTAT'), whereby the CESTAT by virtue of a common order, decided three appeals preferred by the appellant, arising out of the original order, dated 20th September 2007, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion) and while setting aside the impugned order, remanded the matter back to the said authority, for disposal of the issues, inter-alia, on the issue of limitation. 3. The following substantial questions of law have been proposed for our consideration : (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in remanding the proceedings to the respondent to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... far back as in the year 1995 to 1998 were barred by limitation. Reliance in this regard was placed upon the judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of Pratibha Syntex Ltd. vs. Union of India 2013(287) ELT 290 (Guj.) (iv) The CESTAT, by virtue of the order impugned dated 20th September 2007, after considering the contentions of the appellants that they had been denied an opportunity of cross-examination and after further considering the contention of the appellants that the show cause notices were barred by limitation, set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion), Mumbai and remanded the matter back to the original authority, inter-alia, on the ground that the impugned order did not reflect that the issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hahani & Co. (Delhi) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi 1994 (73) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). In case of M.G. Shahani & Co. (Delhi) Ltd. (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had rejected the prayer of the State for remanding the matter back to the Collector, in view of the presence of cogent and clear material on record, which could not have been controverted. It was held : "5. The complaint by the appellant before us, for which we find sufficient justification, is that the Tribunal should have itself gone through the evidence and rendered a finding because all the relevant materials were before the Tribunal. To characterise the order of the Collector as laconic is not correct since he has written a detailed order including reference to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peditiously. 7. During the course of arguments, however, we were informed by learned counsel for the respondent that pursuant to the order of remand passed by the CESTAT, the Commissioner of Customs, (Export Promotion) had considered the entire issue in terms of the order of CESTAT and passed the final order dated 6th October 2021. 8. It needs to be clarified that although the present appeal was filed by the appellant in this Court on 17th 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
