2018 (4) TMI 119

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods viz set top boxes falling under Chapter 85287100 of CETA, 1985. The appellant has executed a bond with the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Jayanagar Division, Bangalore-Ill Central Excise Commissionerate for an amount of Rs. 15 crores and equivalent surety bond under Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules 2016 and are registered for availing of exemption from payment of Customs duty and CVD on imported goods. The appellant filed Annexure-Ill No.203/2016-17 dt 30/01/2017 for of goods with the lower adjudicating authority and was allowed to import the goods valued at Rs. 79,81,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....issioner(Appeals) has come to the conclusion that the appeal is not maintainable before him, then immediately the appellant filed a letter to the Commissioner(Appeals) requesting him to transfer the case to the appropriate appellate authority, if it is not related to Customs appeal but the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) without considering the request of the appellant rejected the appeal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Learned consultant further submitted that in the case of Premchand Gokaldas Vs, CST, Ahmedabad [2010(17) STR 36 (Tri. Chennai)], it was held by the Tribunal that "it was equally the duty of the officer before whom the appeal was wrongly filed, to transfer the papers to the right forum". Similarly in the case of Maru....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssors vs. CC(Export) [2016(333) ELT 390 (Del.)] iii. Gilco Export Ltd. vs. (JOI [2015(317) ELT 229 (P&H)] 5 On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of material on record and the various decisions relied upon by the appellant, I am of view that the commission of customs (appeals) should not have rejected the appeal on jurisdiction. If the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals) was of the view that the appeal lies to the Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals) then he should have sent the same to that authority but he did not do so in spite of the request made by the appellant vide his letter dt. 08/09/2017. Further I find that the rejection of the ....