2016 (12) TMI 1438

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....16, W.M.P.Nos.27804 to 27807 of 2016, W.P.No.32059 of 2016 - -<br>Customs<br>T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.A.Ganesh For the Respondents : Ms.Hemalatha ORDER Heard Mr.A.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents. With the consent of either side, the writ petitions are taken up for di....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... NVR Forgings vs. Union of India reported in 2016 (335) E.L.T. 679 (P&H), wherein it was held that the Joint Secretary of the Central Government has no jurisdiction to decide the revision. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: "8.In the present case, the impugned order was passed by the Joint Secretary to Government of India who was also Commissioner of Central Excise and C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent authority and therefore requires to be interfered with. However, this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter. Nevertheless, this Court can examine as to whether the Commissioner (Appeals) has considered the matter in a proper perspective. On a reading of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) it is evidently clear that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not taken into considerati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onclusion that the goods carried by the petitioner were prohibited goods. However, while examining the appeal petition, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has not made a thorough exercise in this regard. In fact there has not been proper examination as to whether the goods which were brought by the petitioner are prohibited goods. Therefore, this Court is of the view that even if the impugned o....