Tribunal sets aside attachment order for goods due to lack of proper service, appeal deemed maintainable.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the party, setting aside the order of attachment for goods. It held that the attachment order was unsustainable as the original order had not been served on the party, making the appeal against the attachment order maintainable. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner's view that the attachment order was not appealable, emphasizing that the Assistant Commissioner's decision should have been subject to appeal due to its quasi-judicial nature. Consequently, the Tribunal found in favor of the party, concluding that the attachment order was not sustainable without proper service of the original order.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against attachment of goods without serving Order-in-Original, maintainability of appeal against notice of attachment, sustainability of order of attachment for goods.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the party along with a stay application concerning an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The Tribunal decided to proceed with the matter based on a limited issue. The party contended that the Assistant Commissioner's order for attachment of goods was invalid as the Order-in-Original had not been served on them. They had filed an appeal against the attachment order, citing that it was not sustainable without proper service of the original order. The Commissioner of Appeals noted that since no appeal was made against the original order confirming customs duty, the party was precluded from appealing the subsequent attachment notice. The Tribunal, after considering arguments from both sides, found that the original order had not been served on the party, rendering the attachment order unsustainable. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner's view that the attachment order was not appealable, stating that as a quasi-judicial authority, the Assistant Commissioner's order should have been appealable.

The Tribunal reviewed submissions and records, confirming that the Order-in-Original had not been served on the party, as reported by the concerned Commissionerate. They agreed with the party's argument that without proper service of the original order, there was no basis for recovery proceedings. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner's assertion that the attachment order was not appealable, emphasizing that as a quasi-judicial authority, the Assistant Commissioner's order should have been subject to appeal. Considering the circumstances and the lack of service of the original order, the Tribunal concluded that the order of attachment for goods was not sustainable and set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the party's appeal against the attachment order was maintainable, given the absence of service of the original order and the quasi-judicial nature of the Assistant Commissioner's decision.

---