Responsive Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & CE Mumbai
Customs
2018 (10) TMI 766 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 11-7-2018
Applications No. C/EH/85678/2018 & E/EH/85680/2018, C/MISC/85679/2018 & E/MISC/85681/2018, Appeal No. C/86868/2018 & E/86870/2018 – A/87430-87431/2018
Customs
Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
Shri Vishal Agrawal, Advocate with Shri Ramnath Prabhu, Advocate for appellant
Shri S.R. Nair, E.O with Shri M.R. Melvin, Supdt. (AR) for respondent
ORDER
Per: S.K. Mohanty
Appellant has filed these miscellaneous applications, seeking for early hearing of appeals and for stay of operation of the impugned order/communication of the Asst. Commissioner (Adj), Central GST & Central Excise, Palghar.
2. When the matter was called, learned D.R. appearing for Revenue, at the outset, submits that the appeals against the decision of Asst. Commissioner dated 3rd May, 2018 is not maintainable before the Tribunal in terms of Se
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
se of Amit Electronics v. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.).
4. Heard both sides and examined the records.
5. The Assistant Commissioner (Adj.) in his letter dated 03.05.2018 had conveyed that he had been directed by the adjudicating authority for communicating to the appellant for not granting cross examination of the witnesses. The said communication of the Asst. Commissioner cannot be considered as an order / decision by the Commissioner of Customs, as an adjudicating authority inasmuch as such letter is silent about the mode of direction being given by the adjudicating authority and also there is no available record to show that some order was passed or decision taken by the Commissioner and the same was merely communicated/ conveyed by the Assistant Commissioner. Since sub-section (1) of Sections 129A / Section 35B of the Act recognizes the decision or order passed by the Commissioner of Customs / Central Excise as adjudicating authority alone, for entertaining the appeal by the a
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Delhi High Court in the case of Amit Electronics (supra) relied upon by the learned Advocate for the appellant is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case inasmuch as in such cited case, there was an order dated 03.05.2013, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), which was merely communicated by the Asst. Commissioner. Since in the case of Amit Electronics (supra), the order was passed by the competent authority as contemplated under Section 129A of the Act, such order will be considered as appealable order and the Hon'ble High Court has held that appeal is maintainable against such order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive).
6. In view of foregoing discussion and analysis, I do not find any merits in the applications filed by the appellant, and accordingly, the same are dismissed. Since, the appeals stand in narrow compass regarding determination of their maintainability before Tribunal, which have already been held in the previous par
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =