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 1]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Vetri Impex vs Commissioner Of Customs (General), ... on 16 April, 2012

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI 


   Appeal No.   C/451/11

(Arising out Order-in-Appeal No. 49/2010-11-CHA dated 29.3.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai)

For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see	            No    	 
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              Yes		CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
	in any authoritative report or not?

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

4.	Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental        Yes	 
	authorities?

Vetri Impex
Appellant

          Vs.


Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai
Respondent

Appearance:

Shri R.B. Pardeshi, Advocate for the appellant Shri Sanjay Kalra, Appraiser (AR) for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 16.04.2012 Date of decision : 16.04.2012 O R D E R No:..
Per: Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellant has filed this appeal against the impugned order wherein the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai exercised powers conferred under Regulation 21 under CHALR 2004 and prohibited the appellant from operation of extension granted under Regulation 9(2) of CHALR 2004 to the appellant.

2. After hearing both sides and going through the relevant provisions of the CHALR 2004, we find that appeal before this Tribunal lies against the decision passed by the Commissioner (General) under Regulation 20 or Regulation 22(7) of CHALR, 2004. Therefore, we hold that this appeal does not lie before us. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as not maintainable, with liberty to appellant to take up alternative remedy before appropriate forum.

3. Order be given dasti.

(Dictated in Court) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) SR 2