Tribunal procedure governs transferred appeals, and prescribed paper-set filing is mandatory for pending matters

A proceeding transferred from a revision petition under the Customs Act to the Tribunal was required to follow the Tribunal's then-current procedural rules, including filing the prescribed number of paper sets under Rule 8. The filing requirement was treated as procedural only and not as affecting any vested substantive right. The transferred matter was therefore governed by the Tribunal's appellate procedure from the stage it stood on transfer, and compliance with the paper-set requirement was obligatory for further processing before the Tribunal.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal transferred from a revision petition under Section 131-B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 was required to comply with Rule 8 of the Customs, Excise & Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 by filing the prescribed number of paper sets.

Analysis: The transferred proceeding was to be treated as an appeal before the Tribunal from the stage at which it stood, and the new appellate procedure governed its further processing. The filing requirement under the Tribunal Rules was procedural and did not take away any vested substantive right of the appellant. The change in forum and procedure was held to be effective for pending matters, and the requirement of furnishing multiple copies was considered necessary for proper conduct of the appeal before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The filing of papers in accordance with Rule 8 of the Customs, Excise & Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 was obligatory, and the appellant was directed to comply.

Final Conclusion: The transferred proceeding was held to be governed by the Tribunal's procedural requirements, and the appellant's objection to filing the requisite paper sets was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A transferred proceeding pending before the Tribunal must conform to the procedural rules in force at the time of its hearing, and compliance with such procedural requirements does not impair any vested substantive right.

---