9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugned order was affirmed. We have heard Shri Bipin Garg, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned authorised representative for the Revenue and perused the records. 2. Records show that on 11.05.2016, the matter was heard and Shri L.P. Asthana, Ms. Reena Khair, Ms. Rita Jha and Ms. Shreya Dahia argued on behalf of the appellant while Shri Ranjan Khanna and Shri Rajiv Gupta appeared on behalf of the department. After considering the submissions of both sides, a detailed order was passed on 09.08.2016 recording the reasons and holding that there was no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner and rejecting the appeal. 3. The present application has been filed on 25.01.2023 more than six years after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on for restoration of appeal has been filed after more than six years which is an inordinate delay and, therefore, the final order cannot be recalled at this stage. He relies on the judgment of Tribunal in the case of M/s Anjani Technoplast Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Exports), New Delhi [2022 (8) TMI 886-CESTAT-New Delhi]. Para 22 of which is reproduced below: "22 In the present case, as noted above, the application was filed by the appellant for recall of the order dated 07.07.2015 only on 31.05.2022. The appellant had throughout contested before the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court that it should not be required to deposit the amount because the un-amended provisions of Section 35 of the Customs Act would be applicable. Eve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RI a show cause notice came to be issued to the exporter M/s Dadi Impex. During investigation, it came to light that the applicant/appellant before us acted as CHA and in discharging his functions, violated certain provisions of CHA Licensing Regulations. These allegations of violation of CHALR by the appellant/applicant have been confirmed by the Commissioner, Jodhpur and upheld by the Final Order dated 9.8.2016. Any decision regarding action under the Customs Act against the exporter and/or the appellant are separate proceedings. 7. We also note that remand order of the Ahmedabad Bench in the appeal of the exporter on which reliance is now placed was also passed in 2017 - five years before this application is filed. The remand was on a t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
