2003 (5) TMI 431 - AT - Customs

Appeal Upheld: Tribunal Cites Customs Act Violation, Emphasizes Compliance

The Tribunal found the appeal challenging the Order-in-Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) to be maintainable. It held that directing the appeal to ... Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) Issues:1. Maintainability of appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) due to authorization issue.2. Validity of the direction to file the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals).3. Compliance with Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962.4. Ex parte order due to lack of hearing notice to the appellants.Analysis:1. The appeal challenged the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds of maintainability. The appellants contended that the appeal was not maintainable as the direction to file the appeal was given to an officer who was not the authority who passed the original order. Citing the judgment in the case of CCE v. M.M. Rubber Co., it was argued that Section 129D of the Customs Act requires that only the authority who passed the order should be directed to file a review petition or appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal noted the reliance on various cases and held that the direction given to the Deputy Commissioner instead of the Additional Commissioner, who passed the Order-in-Original, was in violation of Section 129D.2. The legal counsel distinguished previous citations and emphasized the importance of the judgment in the case of CCE v. M.M. Rubber Co. in settling the issue of who should be directed to file the appeal. It was argued that the direction to the Deputy Commissioner was invalid in law, rendering the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) unsustainable. The failure of the Commissioner (Appeals) to issue a hearing notice to the appellants was highlighted, leading to concerns about the ex parte nature of the order.3. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal observed that the Order-in-Original had been passed by the Additional Commissioner. Section 129D required the Commissioner of Customs to direct the very authority who passed the order to file the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). However, in this case, the direction was given to the Deputy Commissioner, who was not the appropriate authority. Citing the precedent set by the Apex Court in CCE v. M.M. Rubber Co. and the Tribunal's previous judgments, the Tribunal held that the impugned order was not sustainable in law. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the appeal.In conclusion, the judgment focused on the procedural aspects of authorization and compliance with Section 129D of the Customs Act, emphasizing the importance of directing the appeal to the authority who passed the original order. The decision highlighted the necessity of following legal provisions and established precedents to ensure the validity and sustainability of appeal orders.