2006 (3) TMI 510

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J) (Oral)]. -  After examining the records and hearing both sides, we find that the appeal itself merits summary disposal. Accordingly, after dispensing with predeposit, we proceed to deal with the appeal. The original authority had, in adjudication of a show cause notice dated 25-4-03 (read with corrigendum dated 5-4-04), passed an order demand....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... had passed its order beyond six months from the date of show cause notice, did not state any reason as to why it was not possible for it to pass the order within six months prescribed under Section 28(2A) ibid. Accordingly, learned Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the case to the lower authority with a direction to "revisit the issue on the limited point of why it was not possible to determine the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Customs Act, 1962". Going by the above order of the lower appellate authority, we find that the order of adjudication was annulled. However, the effect of the above order came to be modified by the Commissioner (Appeals) by issuing a corrigendum which reads thus : "Also in page 8, 2nd para in the 1st line, after the word "annulled" the following may be inserted "to that extent of Corrigend....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....- confirmed by the original authority. 3. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, we find that the judicial intent behind the impugned order is clearly discernible from para 10 and 11 read together. It was not the purpose of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the demand of duty of Rs. 38,49,776/- vide para 10 of her order. The purpose was to direct the original ....