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>Commissioner (Appeals) Cannot Remand Cases Post 2001 Amendment</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CUS., AMRITSAR Versus ENKAY (INDIA) RUBBER CO. PVT. LTD.</h3> The Court held that post the 2001 amendment to the Customs Act, the Commissioner (Appeals) no longer had the authority to remand cases back to the ... Order of Commissioner (Appeals) - Power of remand Issues Involved: The appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, regarding the power of remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) post-amendment in 2001.Summary:The appeal raised substantial questions of law regarding the power of remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) after the amendment to Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The issue revolved around whether the Commissioner (Appeals) retained the power to remand cases back to the adjudicating authority post the Finance Act, 2001 amendment. The Court considered the relevant provisions pre and post-amendment to determine the jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals).The learned Counsel for the Revenue argued that the power of remand was specifically removed by the Finance Act, 2001, effective from 11-5-2001. On the other hand, the respondent's Counsel contended that the amended provision still allowed for remand, interpreting it as part of the Commissioner (Appeals)' power to pass just and proper orders. The Court deliberated on the legislative intent behind the amendment and analyzed previous judgments to reach a conclusion.After hearing both parties, the Court found merit in the Revenue's argument that the power of remand was indeed taken away by the Finance Act, 2001. The Court emphasized that the deletion of specific words from the provision indicated a clear legislative intent to remove the power of remand. Citing relevant Supreme Court judgments, the Court set aside the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, directing the matter to be reconsidered in accordance with law by the Commissioner (Appeals) within a specified timeframe.Therefore, the Court held that post the 2001 amendment, the Commissioner (Appeals) no longer possessed the authority to remand cases back to the adjudicating authority, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration within a stipulated period.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
