https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392961 The Court allowed the condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal for two separate applications, one with a delay of 728 days and the other with a delay of 3 days. Competence and jurisdiction under the amended Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 were central to the appeal. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) remanded the issues for reconsideration by the concerned Commissioner due to conflicting judicial opinions. The Court emphasized the need for an independent consideration of jurisdiction and directed the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits without being influenced by previous judgments, including those involving the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The Court disposed of the appeals in alignment with pending consideration before the Supreme Court, providing specific directions for future proceedings. en-us Wed, 19 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Mar 2020 11:45:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392961 The Court allowed the condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal for two separate applications, one with a delay of 728 days and the other with a delay of 3 days. Competence and jurisdiction under the amended Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 were central to the appeal. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) remanded the issues for reconsideration by the concerned Commissioner due to conflicting judicial opinions. The Court emphasized the need for an independent consideration of jurisdiction and directed the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits without being influenced by previous judgments, including those involving the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The Court disposed of the appeals in alignment with pending consideration before the Supreme Court, providing specific directions for future proceedings. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 19 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392961