TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Dismissed: Understanding Customs Act Provision</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI Versus RAJEEV CHANDRASEKHAR</h3> COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI Versus RAJEEV CHANDRASEKHAR - 2007 (209) E.L.T. 396 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Interpretation of provisions of Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding the filing of appeals by different officers.2. Determination of the timeliness of appeals filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs.3. Analysis of the applicability of provisions of Section 129D in relation to the authority passing the order.Analysis:1. The judgment deals with the interpretation of Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962 concerning the filing of appeals. The issue arose when the Revenue filed two appeals against the same Order-in-Original, initially by the Dy. Commissioner and later by the Commissioner of Customs. The argument was made that both appeals were in time as per the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 129D, which authorizes the Commissioner to file the appeal. However, it was clarified that sub-section (2) of Section 129D applies only when the order is passed by an officer subordinate to the Commissioner, not by the Commissioner himself.2. The timeliness of the appeals was a crucial point of contention. The respondent argued that the appeal filed by the Commissioner was time-barred as it was not submitted by the prescribed date. Reference was made to the absence of provisions for condonation of delay by the Tribunal. Citing previous decisions, the respondent emphasized the importance of timely filing of appeals and highlighted that the present appeal was beyond the limitation period, rendering it time-barred.3. The judgment also delves into the applicability of Section 129D in relation to the authority passing the order. It was established that the provisions of sub-section (2) and sub-section (4) of Section 129D do not apply when the order is passed by the Commissioner of Customs himself, as opposed to a subordinate officer. Consequently, the appeal in question was deemed time-barred due to being filed beyond the stipulated period.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal based on the analysis of the provisions of Section 129D and the specific circumstances of the case, emphasizing that the appeal was indeed time-barred due to the order being passed by the Commissioner of Customs himself.
TaxTMI 