Page 256 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

902 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
Appeals of employees could not be kept pending to await
convenience/contingency of importer’s appeal - It was immaterial that
penalties were inextricably linked to confiscability, and during disposal
of appeal, Tribunal could refer to legal and procedural aspects how
imported goods should have been dealt with - Section 129A of Customs
Act, 1962 — S. Muthusamy v. Addl. Director General (Adj.), D.R.I., Mumbai (Tri. -
Mumbai) ........................................ 849
Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) - Limitation - Reassessment - Relevant
date - Bills of Entry assessments finalized contrary to claims of assessee
and without issue of speaking order - HELD : By virtue of provision of
Section 128(1) of Customs Act, 1962, mere finalization of Bill of Entry
itself becomes order or communication of order - Therefore, appeals
required to be filed in such circumstances within time-period from date
of such reassessment/finalization - Section 128(1) of Customs Act, 1962
— Zymonutrients Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai (Tri. - Chennai) ....... 458
Appeal to High Court - Maintainability of - Impugned order of Tribunal
being challenged on the ground of being passed in breach of the
principles of natural justice and in ignorance of the law of limitation, it
cannot be said that appeal has a relation to classification of goods, its
valuation or the rate of duty - Appeal maintainable under Section 35G of
Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994 —
General Security & Information Services v. Commr. of CGST & C. Ex., Kolkata (Cal.) ...... 553
— Maintainability - On question of taxability or excisability of goods arising
from orders of Tribunal - Appeal lies to Supreme Court - Contention that
appeal to Supreme Court from Tribunal’s orders in respect of
excisability/taxability was new class/category of orders and therefore,
amendment of Section 35L of Central Excise Act, 1944 was to be
prospective, not acceptable - Consistent view of Courts that appeals in
respect of excisability/taxability appealable to Supreme Court even
before insertion of sub-section (2) to Section 35L ibid - No new category
or class made for first time by virtue of amendment - No right of appeal
to High Court taken away by virtue of amendment - Appeals from orders
of Tribunal relating to taxability or excisability passed prior to 6th
August, 2014 i.e. date of insertion of sub-section (2) to Section 35L ibid
being a rate of duty issue appealable only to Supreme Court and not
High Court - Amendment made to Section 35L ibid only clarificatory and
retrospective in nature - Sections 35G and 35L of Central Excise Act, 1944
— Commissioner Central Excise, Mumbai-V v. Reliance Media Works Ltd. (Bom.) ....... 220
Appeal to Supreme Court - Dismissal of special leave petition -
Consequences of - Finding and conclusion of lower authorities against
petitioner attain finality and cannot be reopened — Suborno Bose v.
Enforcement Directorate (S.C.) ................................ 3
Appealable order - Communication of DC informing conditions of
provisional release ordered by Commissioner, not an appealable order -
See under APPEAL TO APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ................ 297
Appellate Tribunal - No power of Review - Re-deciding already decided
issue - Power to Review - After having already decided Appeal No.
C/841/1997 vide its order dated 10-7-1998, re-deciding same appeal in
different manner after 9 years vide its order dated 19-4-2007 by Tribunal
not sustainable - Apparently fact of case having already been disposed of
was never brought to knowledge of Tribunal either by registry or by SDR
at time of re-deciding the case - Issuance of second order would
tantamount to review of its own earlier order for which reportedly no
power is available with Tribunal - In view of above, later order dated 19-
4-2007 is set aside and original order dated 10-7-1998 is retained -
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  256