Tribunal rules against appellant, deeming cross-objection filing provision inapplicable.

The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal, finding that the cross-objection filing provision did not apply to appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) and that raising new issues through a cross-objection was unjustified. The Tribunal also rejected the appellant's claim of "callous indifference" by the authorities, ultimately concluding that the appeal lacked merit.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order setting aside department's appeal.

Analysis:
The appellant imported a vessel for breaking in Dec.'90, with an assessed duty of Rs. 26,64,300 paid and not challenged. An audit objection led to a show cause notice in May '91 for additional duty of Rs. 66,750 on movable gears, stores, and bunkers not separately assessed. The original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) both ruled in favor of the appellant, dropping the duty demand. The appellant filed a cross-objection before the Commissioner (Appeals) seeking relief from confirmed duty on fuel oil. The department appealed to set aside the dropping of the duty demand, which was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant appealed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order, alleging errors by the Adjudicating Authority and Commissioner (Appeals).

The Tribunal noted that cross-objection filing provision is only for appeals before the Tribunal under Section 129A(4) of the Customs Act, not for appeals before Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant did not appeal against the assessment order or the original authority's decision in their favor. The Tribunal found the appellant's attempt to raise an issue not part of the show cause through a cross-objection before the Commissioner (Appeals) as unjustified. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's claim of "callous indifference" by the authorities.

The Tribunal concluded that the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.

---