2001 (2) TMI 769

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... S. Arumugam, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - The stay application and appeal arises from the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai in C. Cus. 719/2000 dated 9-11-2000/13-11-2000 rejecting the appeal on two grounds (i) non-compliance of the interim order in terms of the provisions of Section 129E of the Act (ii) on the grounds that appeal is not maintainab....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....S.S.R. However, there was delay in submitting the submissions and the documents and therefore the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed these stay applications and directed them to pre-deposit the entire amount on the ground that they have availed of the opportunity of hearing despite same having been granted to them on number of occasions. It is contended that the final dismissal order under Section ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the opportunities given and the failure on the part of appellants to appear and avail of the same. Therefore, appellants cannot raise a complaint with regard to violation of principles of natural justice. On a specific query from the Bench as to whether from the interim order whether it can be deciphered that Commissioner (Appeals) has heard the appellants on the aspect of jurisdiction, ld. DR, o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....jurisdiction. If the final view of the Commissioner (Appeals) is that appeal before him is not maintainable, then question of directing the appellants to pre-deposit and dismiss the appeal under Section 129E of the Customs Act would not arise. Therefore, there is a clear error in the order. Appellants ought to have been heard on the aspect pertaining to jurisdiction to entertain the appeal before ....