2017 (4) TMI 15

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssed by Commissioner (A). 2. Before we deal with the reasons of delay, we would like to advert to the factual position involved in the present appeal. The appellants are importers of "Traction Control Cabinets (herein after referred to as TCC) and at the time of filing Bill of Entry they classified the same under heading 8537. However, Revenue was of the view that the goods are properly classifiable under heading 8504 4010 pertaining to electric inverters. Accordingly, matter was taken up for adjudication and the original adjudicating authority vide his order in original dated 12.09.2013, accepted the Revenue's stand of classification under heading 8504 4010. The said order of the original adjudicating authority was challenged by the ass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....elieve that the goods were properly classifiable under heading 8537. He also submitted that subsequently there was a notification which exempted the goods falling under heading 8504 4010 from the whole of the basic customs duty and as such the impugned orders have resulted in loss of revenue, in respect of the subsequent imports. As regards, the delay in filing the present appeal, he submits that though the impugned order was received by the jurisdictional central excise authorities having control over the appellant's factory but in as much as there was restructuring of the Commissionerates, the order was sent to the new Commissionerate. Further, he fairly agrees that the even under the new Commissionerate the said order was received on 18.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation, without linking the same with the amount of Revenue involved. Taking a hypothetical situation that the basic customs duty becomes higher, in future in respect of chapter heading 8537, Revenue cannot be permitted to again reverse its stand. Even at the cost of repetition we would like to observe that the order in original having not been challenged by the Revenue and both the impugned orders being in favour of the Revenue, they cannot be held to be aggrieved party so as to challenge the same. 7. Otherwise also, we find that even if the Revenue's stand that the impugned order was received by the new Commissionerate only on 18.11.2014, is taken into account, the appeal stands filed with a delay of 749 days, which is a huge delay. No ....