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>CESTAT Mumbai Emphasizes Fair Process and Merits in Appeal Remand Decision</h1> <h3>Shri Ashuram Modaji Moda Versus Commr. of Customs (Prev.), Mumbai</h3> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI allowed the appeal by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the case on its merits rather ... Seeking early hearing of the appeal - Smuggling - gold and currency which have been seized were lying for the last two years with the Customs - appeal dismissed on the ground that appellant failed to make pre-deposit in compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- The appellant subsequently, while filing the appeal before this forum, paid an amount of ₹ 38.00 lakhs in compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act. Since the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the issue on merits, in view of the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of COLLECTOR OF C. EX., CALCUTTA VERSUS ALNOORI TOBACCO PRODUCTS [2004 (7) TMI 91 - SUPREME COURT], the appeal is allowed by way of remand to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:- Early hearing of appeal due to narrow compass issue- Compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962- Dismissal of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) without examining merits- Payment of requisite amount during appeal filing- Principle of law regarding remand for fresh decisionAnalysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI involved a miscellaneous application seeking early hearing of an appeal due to the narrow compass issue. The appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the appellant's failure to comply with Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant, represented by Shri Anil Balani, deposited the requisite amount of &8377; 38.00 lakhs during the appeal filing, including the percentage required by the Customs Act. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and finding that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not examine the merits of the case, allowed the appeal by way of remand. The Tribunal cited the principle of law established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a specific case, emphasizing the need for the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal afresh after providing an opportunity for the appellant to be heard. All issues were kept open for further consideration.In conclusion, the Tribunal granted the appeal by way of remand, highlighting the importance of a thorough examination of the case on its merits rather than solely basing decisions on procedural compliance. The judgment underscored the significance of following legal provisions while also ensuring that the principles of natural justice are upheld, as evidenced by the remand for a fresh decision by the Commissioner (Appeals).
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
