2026 (3) TMI 1384

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....22, 87574 of 2022, 87575 of 2022, 87576 of 2022, 87577 of 2022, 87578 of 2022, 87579 of 2022, 87580 of 2022, 87581 of 2022, 87582 of 2022, 87583 of 2022, 87584 of 2022, 87585 of 2022, 87586 of 2022 MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. M.M. PARTHIBAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Akhilesh Kangsia a/w Ms Apoorva Parihar, Advocates for the Appellants Shri Jitesh Kumar Jain, Authorized Representative for the Respondents ORDER Per: S.K. MOHANTY Heard both sides and examined the case records. 2. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order dated 17.08.2022 passed by the learned Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-III, the appellants have preferred these appeals before the Tribunal. On careful reading of the case records,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... already been set aside by the Tribunal, vide Final Order No. A/86011-86081/2024 dated 30.09.2024, in Cisco Commerce India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Air Cargo Import), Mumbai, reported in 2024 (9) TMI 1838 - CESTAT Mumbai. Further, the appellants have also contended that on appeal against the order dated 30.09.2024 of the Tribunal, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide order dated 28.01.2026 has dismissed the appeal filed by Revenue. Thus, it was contended that the issue arising out of the present dispute is no more open for any debate, with regard to entitlement to the benefit of concessional rate of duty provided under the notification dated 30.06.2017. 4. We find that the benefit of the concessional rate of BCD in respect of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... impugned order, denying the benefits of concessional rate of duty to the appellants cannot stand for judicial scrutiny. Therefore, the appeals being Nos. C/87546/2022, C/87558/2022 and C/87568/2022 filed by the appellants are allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 17.08.2022 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 5.1 On perusal of the case records, we find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the impugned order dated 17.08.2022, in disposing of three individually assessed Bills of Entry (B/Es) filed by the appellants. However, the appellants have filed forty-one (41) numbers of appeals before the Tribunal, against the said impugned order dated 17.08.2022. During the course of hearing of appeals on 17.03.2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inst before the Tribunal. Since the Commissioner (Appeals) in the present case, has passed the impugned order in disposing of only 3 numbers of assessed Bills of Entry, the remaining appeals (38 in numbers), as claimed by the appellants of having been filed before the office of the Commissioner (Appeals), cannot be entertained by the Tribunal, inasmuch as, the impugned order has not considered any such appeal(s) being filed by the appellants and that the appellants failed to prove any documentary evidence to show that in fact, they had filed the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) with regard to those 38 assessed B/Es. In view of the fact that no orders were passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128A ibid in dispo....