Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

I Dicor India Pvt. Ltd vs Cc, New Delhi (Import & General) on 18 July, 2016

        

 
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

NEW DELHI



PRINCIPAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1





Customs Appeal No. 51653 of 2016 with

Customs Misc. Application No. 50804 of 2016







			 



(Arising out of order-in-appeal No. CC(A) Cus/D-I/GEN/109/2016 dated 11.02.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi)





DATE OF HEARING : 18.07.2016

DATE OF DECISION : 18.07.2009





FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE :



HONBLE MR. JUSTICE (DR.) SATISH CHANDRA, PRESIDENT

HONBLE MR. B. RAVICHANDRAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)







1.
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 ?





2.
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not ?



3.
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order ?



4.
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Authorities?





I Dicor India Pvt. Ltd.			       .                            Appellant

                                         (Rep by Sh. S.K. Pahwa, Adv.)





VERSUS



CC, New Delhi (Import & General)      .                       Respondent

(Rep. by Sh. K. Poddar, DR) CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE (DR.) SATISH CHANDRA, PRESIDENT HONBLE MR. B. RAVICHANDRAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) ORDER NO. 52486/2016 PER JUSTICE (DR.) SATISH CHANDRA :

The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri S.K. Pahwa, assailed the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 11.02.2016 vide which he has remanded the matter to the original authority for re-examination. He submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has remanded the matter earlier also, so this is the second time the matter has been remanded back by the impugned order and no deadline is fixed for deciding the same. He prays that an early hearing may be granted.

2. After hearing both the parties, it appears that the Commissioner (Appeals) has remanded the matter twice to the original authority. The goods are lying with the Departments custody since 2013.

3. In view of the above, we direct the original authority to re-examine the matter as per the directions of the Commissioner (Appeals) within a period of four weeks from today. The learned counsel for the assessee will submit the copy of this order to the original authority within a period of one week. With these observations, the appeal as well as the application for early hearing stand disposed of.

(JUSTICE DR. SATISH CHANDRA) PRESIDENT (B. RAVICHANDRAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Golay 1