9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 023 3. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 4. The application stands disposed of. CUSAA 45/2023 5. The Revenue has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 28.09.2022, passed by the learned Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ('CESTAT'), rejecting the Revenue's application (Application No. 50612/2022) seeking condonation of delay in filing the said appeal. 6. The Revenue had filed the said appeal before the learned CESTAT assailing the Order-in-Appeal dated 06.10.2017, whereby the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had rejected the Revenue's appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 17.12.2014. 7. The controversy before the Adjudicating Authority related to the evaluation of the goods imported by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e defects. 12. However, the appellant failed and neglected to clear the defects. Consequently, the Registry returned the appeal to the Revenue under cover of the letter dated 08.05.2018. 13. There is some controversy as to whether the Defect Notices were received by the concerned department. According to the Registry of the learned CESTAT, all notices were correctly addressed and dispatched. The appellant denies knowledge of the same. 14. However, there is no dispute that the letter dated 08.05.2018, under cover of which the appeal was returned to the Revenue, was received. The said letter clearly indicated that the appeal was being returned for the reason that the defects had not been removed till that date. 15. Despite, the receipt of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enquiries, information was provided that the appeal papers had been returned back to that office by the Registry of the CESTAT. 21. The learned CESTAT held that once the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Review) had become aware that the appeal had been returned back, at least at that stage, he could have taken steps for filing a fresh appeal, however, the appeal was filed much belatedly on 10.02.2022. 22. The learned CESTAT has, accordingly, concluded that there were no justifiable reasons for the delay in filing the appeal after the same was returned as defective. 23. We find that the impugned order is well reasoned and cannot be faulted. 24. Clearly, no substantial questions of law arise in the present appeal. 25. The appeal is, accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
