2025 (7) TMI 737

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (hereinafter 'CESTAT') as also the order dated 17th June, 2021 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. The brief background is that the Petitioner had imported 197 consignments of Aluminium scrap from different countries and the same was presented for clearing before the Assessing Officer (hereinafter 'AO'). However, the transaction value was not accepted by the AO and duty was collected from the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, the same was excess duty and therefore, the Petitioner approached the Principal Commissioner (Appeals). The reassessment of the goods by the AO was set aside in appeal and the original assessments as per the Petitioner were accepted by the Commissioner which led to refund of a sum of Rs. 8,75,22,009/-. 4....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....thin 30 days of receipt of this order." 7. A second appeal was preferred before CESTAT, Chandigarh which was also dismissed in the following terms: "4. Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Sikka DGM for the appellant and gone through the records placed before me, it is a fact on record that the adjudication order was received by the appellant on 13.09.2019 and the appeal has been filed before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on 11.02.2021 whereas the statutory period of filing the appeal expires on 12.11.2019 which could have been extended by another 30 days on showing the reason for causing the delay to the satisfaction of the appellate authority. Beyond the said period, the appellate authorities have no authority to condone the delay. As the facts of....